Ihellnityofthc 


Philadelphia  Congress  of 
Rclicjious  Liberals  "xy 


Al 


LIBR^VRY 

OF   TIIK 

University  of  California. 


GIFT    OF 

Class  ^ 


J  \cur'  A. ..r<rAii^a^'^'V)   ^  ^-oLc^.ui^/vo  Lt-^.i 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT 


PROCEEDINGS  AND  PAPERS  OF  THE 


FIRST  CONGRESS 


NATIONAL  FEDERATION  OF 
'*      RELIGIOUS  LIBERALS 


HELD  AT  PHILADELPHIA,  PENN., 


MEETING   HOUSE   OF   THE   RELIGIOUS   SOCIETY 
OF   FRIENDS 

APRIL  27,  28,  29  and  30,  1909 

EDITED    BY 

CHARLES   W.  WENDTE,  D.D. 


NATIONAL  FEDERATION  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERALS 
25  BEACON  STREET,  BOSTON,  MASS. 


M 


0'^' 


73x6 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


PAGE 

I.    Title    Page i 

II.    Index  of  Topics iii,  iv,  v 

III.  Introduction,  bv  Chas.  W.  Wendte,  D.D i 

Origin  and  Aims  of  the  National  Federation  of  Religious 

Liberals. 
The  First  Congress  at  Philadelphia. 

IV.  Officers  and  Executive  Committee  of  the  Federation     .     i6 
V.    The  International  Congress  of  Religious  Liberals     .     .     i8 

VI.     Program    of   the    Philadelphia    Congress,    with    Illus- 
trative  Readings         20 

VII.     Resolutions  Adopted  by  the  Congress 38 

VIII.     First  Topic  of  the  Congress  : 

Religious  Tolerance  and  Good  Citizenship. 
"  The  Jew  and  Good  Citizenship,"  Rabbi  Dr.  David  Philip- 
son     44 

"  The     Roman     Catholic     and     Good     Citizenship,"     Hon. 

Charles  J.  Bonaparte 56 

"  The  Protestant  and  Good  Citizenship,"  President  W.  H. 

P.    Faunce 66 

"  The  Negro  and  Good  Citizenship,"  Dr.  Booker  T.  Wash- 
ington     ^z 

IX.     Second  Topic  of  the  Congress  : 

The  Nature  and  Mission  of  Religious  Liberalism. 

Presidential  Address,  Henry  W.  Wilbur 75 

"What  is  Religious  Liberalism?"  Rev.  William   Channing 

Gannett,   D.D 76 

"What  Liberal  Religion  Does  for  Man's  Higher  Welfare 
and  Happiness,"  President  Frederick  W.  Hamilton, 
D.D 87 

"  What  Liberal  Religion  has  done  for  America,"  Edwin  D. 

Mead 93 

"  Liberal  Religion  a  Positive  Faith,"  Hon.  Curtis  Guild,  Jr.    95 

"  The  Obligations  and  Opportunities  of  Religious  Liberal- 
ism in  America  To-Day,"  Rev.  Frederic  W.  Perkins, 
D.D 103 


191682 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS 

PAGE 

"  The  Relation  of  Liberal   Religion  to  Foreign   Missions," 

Albert  Bowen 112 

Remarks,  Rev.  Clay  MacCauley 118 

X.    Third  Topic  of  the  Congress  : 
Religion  and  Modern  Life. 

"  The   Religion   of   Democracy,   as   exemplified   by  the   Ca- 
reer  of   Abraham    Lincoln    (1809-1909),"   Rev.    Jenkin 

Lloyd  Jones,  LL.D 123 

"  Evolution  and  Religion.     Religion's  Debt  to  Charles  Dar- 
win   ( 1809-1909) ,"  Rev.   Charles  E.   St.   John     .     .     .   132 
"The  Bible  in  Modern  Life,"  Rabbi  David  Philipson,  D.D.  143 
"The  Church  in  Modern  Life,"  Rev.  Frank  O'.  Hall,  D.D.  154 
"Jesus  Christ  in  Modern  Life,"  Professor  George  B.  Fos- 
ter,   Ph.D 164 

XI.     Fourth  Topic  of  the  Congress  : 
Religion  and  the  Social  Question. 
"  Religion  and  the   Social   Conscience,"   Professor   Francis 

Greenwood    Peabody,    D.D 185 

"  Religion  and  Politics,"  Justice  F.  J.   Swayze     ....   197 
"  Religion  and  Social  Service,"  Alexander  Johnson     .      .     .  207 
"Religion  and  Modern  Industrialism,"  John  Mitchell     .      .211 
XII.    Fifth  Topic  of  the  Congress  : 
Religion  and  Reform. 

"  The  Duty  of  Religious  Liberals  toward  the  Peace  Move- 
ment," Dr.  William  I.  Hull 222 

"  The  Duty   of   Religious   Liberals   with   Respect  to   Mar- 
riage and  Divorce,"   Mrs.  Anna  Garlin  Spencer     .      .  227 
"  The    Duty    of    Religious    Liberals    with    Respect    to    the 

Child,"    Mrs.    Frederick    Nathan 247 

"  The  Duty  of  Religious  Liberals  toward  the  Temperance 

Reform,"  Wilson    S.   Doan 256 

Remarks,  Rev.  Pedro  Ilgen,  D.D 264 

XIII.     Sixth   and   Closing  Topic  of  the  Congress  : 
The  Fellowship  of  the  Spirit. 

"  The  Church  Universal,"  Isaac  H.  Clothier  of  Philadelphia  267 
"  Liberty  and  Union  in  Religion,"  Rev.   Charles  G.  Ames, 

D.D.,   of    Boston,   Mass 269 

Addresses  by  Representative  Members  of  the  Following  Re- 
ligious Bodies  : — 
Baptist,  Rev.  Dr.  George  H.  Ferris,  of  Philadelphia  .  .  271 
Christian,  Rev.  Wm.  H.  Hainer,  Irvington,  N.  J.  .  .  .  273 
Episcopalian,  Rev.  Dr.  Henry  Mottet,  of  New  York  .  .  275 
Ethical  Culture  Society,  Mr.  Percival  Chubb,  of  New  York  275 
Friend,  Prof.  Dr.  Jesse  H.  Holmes,  of  Philadelphia     .     .  277 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS 

PAGE 

German  Evangelical,  Rev.  Carl  A.  Voss,  D.D.,  of  Pittsburg, 

Pa 279 

Jewish,  Rabbi  Dr.  Joseph  Krauskopf,  of  Philadelphia  .  .  280 
Lutheran,  Rev.  Luther  DeYeo,  Germantown,  Pa.  .  .  .  282 
Schwenkfelderian,  Rev.  H.  Heebner,  of  Philadelphia  .  .  283 
Universalist,   Rev.   J.    Clarence  Lee,   D.D.,   of   Philadelphia  284 

Unitarian,  Rev.  Wm.  H.   Fish,   Meadville,   Pa 286 

Closing   address   by   Henry   W.    Wilbur,    President   of   the 
Congress 287 


INTRODUCTION 

I.    ORIGIN  AND  AIMS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  FEDERATION  OF  RELIGIOUS 

LIBERALS 

BY   CHAS.    W.    WENDTE^   D.    D. 

In  the  closing  days  of  April,  1909,  there  was  held  in  the  city 
of  Philadelphia,  in  the  Race  Street  Meeting  House  of  the  Re- 
ligious Society  of  Friends,  a  three  days'  conference  of  the  friends 
of  liberal  and  progressive  religion  and  a  fellowship  based  on 
character  and  service,  instead  of  creed  or  rite. 

This  Congress  of  Religious  Liberals,  as  it  called  itself,  was  the 
first  public  meeting  of  the  National  Federation  of  Religious  Lib- 
erals, an  association  formed  some  months  previously  (December 
3rd,  1908),  in  the  same  city  and  place,  by  a  number  of  pro- 
gressive Christians,  Reform  Jews,  Ethical  Culturists,  and  others, 
eleven  different  religious  fellowships  being  represented  in  person 
or  by  letter  at  the  meeting. 

The  organization  of  this  Federation  was,  in  turn,  the  out- 
growth of  a  previously  established  and  still  larger  association  of 
free  and  progressive  believers,  the  International  Council  of  Uni- 
tarian and  Other  Liberal  Religious  Thinkers  and  Workers, 
founded  in  Boston  in  the  year  1900.  This  Council,  after  several 
large  and  successful  congresses  in  European  cities  (London,  1901 ; 
Amsterdam,  1903;  Geneva,  1905),  returning  to  the  country  of 
its  inception,  held  in  Boston,  in  the  autumn  of  1907,  an  Interna- 
tional Congress  of  Religious  Liberals,  at  which  16  different 
nations,  26  different  church  fellowships,  and  93  religious  asso- 
ciations were  officially  or  unofficially  represented.  This  Congress, 
which  lasted  for  five  days  and  enrolled  nearly  2,400  paid  mem- 
bers, was  a  notable  event  in  the  history  of  reverent  free-thought. 
It  brought  the  liberal  denominations  and  the  liberal  elements  in 
nearly  all  denominations,  as  well  as  free  and  advanced  thinkers 

I 


outside  the  churches,  into  closer  affiliation  with  each  other,  dis- 
closed to  them  the  beauty  and  advantage  of  united  counsels  and 
endeavors,  and  prompted  among  them  a  general  desire  for  some 
form  of  association  which  should  conserve  on  American  soil  the 
helpful  fellowship  which  this  International  meeting  had  made 
possible.  These  great  international  gatherings  are  held  at  com- 
paratively long  intervals  and  in  different  countries.  The  next 
one  will  be  convened  in  Berlin,  Germany,  August  6th-ioth,  1910. 
The  one  succeeding  that  may  be  welcomed  to  Paris  in  1913.  It 
will  be  a  number  of  years  before  this  body  again  assembles  in 
America. 

In  the  meantime  there  is  danger  that  the  large  and  congenial 
fellowship  which  the  Boston  International  Congress  brought  into 
existence  and  the  liberal  and  reconciling  influences  it  radiated 
through  the  American  community  may  be  imperilled  or  lost.  To 
prevent  this,  to  unify  and  concentrate  the  forces  which  make  for 
religious  sincerity,  freedom  and  progress  in  the  United  States, 
and  bring  them,  from  time  to  time,  into  council  and  cooperation 
concerning  the  spiritual  and  ethical  interests  they  hold  in  com- 
mon,—  this  was  the  purpose  of  the  founders  of  the  National 
Federation  of  Religious  Liberals. 

An  extended  correspondence  with  a  large  number  of  representa- 
tive religious  liberals  throughout  the  country,  conducted  by  the 
present  writer,  who,  as  secretary  of  the  International  Congress 
since  its  establishment  ten  years  ago,  enjoyed  exceptional  oppor- 
tunities for  this  work,  disclosed  the  conscious  need  for  such  a  com- 
mon and  unifying  center  of  free  and  progressive  sentiment  in 
the  religious  life  of  America.  Encouraged  by  the  responses  re- 
ceived and  adhesions  gained,  at  the  kind  invitation  of  members 
of  the  Religious  Society  of  Friends  in  Philadelphia,  a  meeting  for 
the  organization  of  a  national  federation  of  liberal-minded  and 
religious  men  and  women  was  called,  and,  as  has  been  stated,  after 
serious  conference,  the  new  association  was  formed.  But  three 
articles  of  organization  were  adopted.  The  first  concerns  its 
name  —  The  National  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals.  The 
second  states  its  purpose  — "  to  promote  the  religious  life  by  united 
testimony    for   sincerity,    freedom,    and    progress    in    religion,    by 


social  service,  and  a  fellowship  of  the  spirit  beyond  the  lines  of 
sect  and  creed." 

The  third  article  provides  that  "  participation  in  the  Federa- 
tion will  leave  each  individual  responsible  for  his  own  opinions 
alone,  and  affect  in  no  degree  his  relations  with  other  religious 
bodies  or  schools  of  thought." 

All  the  other  interests  of  the  Federation  were  committed  to 
an  executive  committee  of  twenty-five,  whose  names  will  be  found 
elsewhere  in  this  volume,  and  whose  high  and  widely  representa- 
tive character  is  an  assurance  of  the  wisdom  and  catholicity  with 
which  the  affairs  of  the  Association  are  likely  to  be  conducted. 

It  is  intended  to  hold,  from  time  to  time,  in  centers  of  American 
thought  and  life.  Congresses  for  the  consideration  of  religious  and 
social  questions,  especially  in  their  relations  to  our  national  wel- 
fare. So  far  as  possible  these  meetings  will  be  held  in  alternate 
years  with  the  international  gatherings  already  referred  to. 
These  local  congresses  should  be  m.ade  notable  events  in  the 
religious  life  of  our  countrj^  by  the  freedom,  largeness,  and 
weight  of  their  united  testimony  on  great  topics  of  religious,  eth- 
ical, civic  and  social  import. 

The  advantages  of  such  an  organization  for  religious  fellow- 
ship and  counsel  are  many  and  apparent.  Liberal  opinions  in 
religion,  tolerance  and  charity  in  its  administration,  the  demand 
for  sincerity  in  avowing  one's  convictions,  and  the  desire  for 
progress  in  matters  of  belief  as  in  all  else  —  these  are  sentiments 
widely  disseminated  in  the  American  community.  They  fail  to 
exert  their  full  and  just  influence,  however,  because  they 
are  not  effectively  organized  for  mutual  support  and  action. 
The  testimony  we  give  on  great  topics  of  thought  and  life 
gains  immeasurably  if  it  be  not  merely  the  opinion  of 
an  isolated  thinker  but  the  expression  of  a  great  num- 
ber of  truth-loving  and  earnest  men  and  women  combined  for 
that  special  purpose.  The  existing  liberal  denominations  are  but 
few  in  number  and  feeble  in  resources.  The  rational  and  pro- 
gressive believers  in  the  churches  called  orthodox,  or  those  outside 
of  all  churches,  may  exercise  greater  or  less  influence  because  of 
their  intellectual  gifts  and  moral  courage,  yet  they  are  the  ob- 


jects  of  suspicion  and  theological  rancor,  disowned  and  persecuted, 
and  especially  need  to  be  heartened  and  sustained.  The  Federa- 
tion will  afford  them  a  larger  opportunity  for  testimony  and  service 
to  truth,  and  bring  them  into  congenial  fellowship  with  other  like- 
minded  spirits.  Endeavors  to  bring  at  least  the  so-called  liberal 
sects  into  closer  relations  have  mostly  failed,  nor  are  they  likely 
to  be  successful  hereafter,  unless  a  common  meeting-place  for 
united  conference  and  action  outside  their  present  organizations 
can  be  found.  Such  an  association  should  not  attempt  to  dupli- 
cate or  become  a  substitute  for  any  of  the  existing  denominations. 
It  should  respect  their  historical  and  doctrinal  differentiation  and 
leave  intact  their  denominational  activities.  It  should  strive  to 
strengthen  them  in  their  own  proper  work  and  bring  them  into 
union  for  the  furtherance  of  the  principles  and  aims  they  hold 
in  common,  thus  promoting  among  them  a  fellowship  of  the 
spirit  beyond  the  lines  of  sect  and  creed. 

If  such  a  union  cannot  be  formed  it  will  go  far  to  justify  the 
contempt  in  which  the  champions  of  infallible  authority  and  tra- 
dition in  religion  hold  liberal  believers  because  of  their  spiritual 
impotence.  A  faith  which  is  not  social  cannot  be  meant  for  so- 
ciety. A  religion  without  vision  and  virility  and  self-sacrifice 
enough  to  devote  itself  to  the  larger  good  of  humanity  has  no 
call  to  lead  and  no  place  to  fill  in  our  modem  world.  "  To- 
gether! "  was  as  true  a  sentiment  on  the  consecrated  lips  of  a 
liberal  believer  like  Edward  Everett  Hale  as  in  the  impassioned 
message  which  General  Booth  flashed  around  the  world  to  in- 
spire his  orthodox  followers. 

Our  liberal  testimony  and  service  are  needed  more  than  ever 
to-day.  A  speaker  at  our  late  Congress  in  Philadelphia  *  uttered 
a  word  of  warning: 

"  One  of  the  great  dangers  in  public  life  is  that  the  great  gen- 
eral principles  which  have  actuated  the  past  and  become  the  ax- 
ioms of  conduct  may,  by  their  very  success,  become  mere  com- 
monplaces, and  be  lost  sight  of  or  disregarded  in  the  strenuous 
effort  to  accomplish  practical  results  of  apparent  immediate  im- 
portance. Our  political  principles  may  become  atrophied  for  want 
of  question  and  discussion.     The  great  principles  of  religious  free- 

*  See   Address  of   Justice   Swayze,   p.    197    of   the   present   volume. 


dom  and  political  liberty  which  occupied  the  attention  of  the  sev- 
enteenth and  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries,  are  in  danger 
of  being  forgotten  for  want  of  the  debate  which  attended  their 
establishment.  They  arose  out  pf  the  fierce  heat  of  political  con- 
flict; they  may  perish  because  it  is  no  longer  necessary  to  struggle 
in  their  behalf.  Citizens  of  foreign  birth  often  seem  to  have  a 
better  knowledge  and  a  greater  appreciation  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  government  than  many  native  born  Americans 
who  take  their  inheritance  as  a  matter  of  course  without  stopping 
to  consider  its  value." 

It  will  be  a  proper  function  of  this  Federation  to  recall  atten- 
tion to  these  fundamental  guarantees  of  our  civil  and  religious 
liberties  in  state  and  church,  in  school  and  home,  to  explain  more 
fully  their  nature  and  purpose,  and  to  apprise  our  people  of  the 
dangers  resultant  from  ignorance  and  apathy  on  this  subject.  The 
very  next  public  meeting  of  our  Association,  it  is  now  hoped, 
may  deal  thoroughly  and  juridically  with  this  topic. 

Furthermore  this  Federation  will  accomplish  an  important  work 
if  it  disabuses  the  public  mind  of  the  prevalent  and  mistaken  no- 
tion that  liberality  in  religion  means  simply  negation  and  destruc- 
tion on  the  one  hand  or  indifference  on  the  other.  There  was, 
indeed,  an  era  in  the  development  of  religious  freedom  in  this 
country  when  its  endeavors  were  chiefly,  and  perhaps  necessarily, 
antagonistic  and  destructive.  There  was  an  excuse  for  this,  and 
in  some  remote  communities  among  us,  densely  ignorant  and 
prejudiced,  that  excuse  is  still  valid.  No  new  superstructure  of 
religious  opinion  can  be  reared  on  the  old,  eternal  foundations 
of  religion  in  man's  breast  until  many  existing  temples  of  error 
and  superstition  are  shattered  and  laid  low.  Negation  and  de- 
struction are  thus  only  a  preliminary  stage  of  affirmation  and  con- 
struction. Every  such  denial  holds  an  affirmation  in  its  bosom. 
It  would  be  fatal  if  the  latter  were  to  be  suppressed  and  not 
permitted  to  germinate.  The  better  and  more  enduring  part  of 
each  radical  protest  lies  in  the  truth  for  which  it  clears  the  way. 

The  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals  aims  to  become  such  a 
herald  of  religious  truth,  and  not  a  mere  iconoclast  in  the  temples 
of  Christendom.  It  will  not  occupy  itself  to  any  extent  with  the 
refutation    of    ancient    dogmas,    established    and    orthodox.     The 


latter,  in  an  age  of  enlightenment  and  re-interpretation  of  faith 
may  be  safely  left  to  the  dissolving  influences  of  historical  crit- 
icism, natural  science,  and  modern  life.  An  age  which,  like  ours, 
lays  the  emphasis  of  religion  on  the  social  conscience  and  serv- 
ice of  mankind,  is  not  likely  to  attach  undue  importance  to 
dogma  and  rite  in  the  administration  of  Christianity.  In  these 
respects  the  contributions  of  Drs.  Wm.  C.  Gannett,  F.  G.  Pea- 
body,  and  others,  to  this  volume,  utter  the  growing  conviction  of 
radical  thinkers.  The  free-thinker  whose  main  strength  is  given 
to  smiting  outworn  and  dying  dogmas  and  excoriating  their  up- 
holders belongs  to  a  past  and  archaic  age.  He  displays  neither 
the  wisdom  nor  the  temper  of  a  true  liberal.  He  is  more  likely 
to  fan  into  a  brighter  flame  the  embers  of  orthodox  belief  than  to 
put  them  out.  He  would  be  better  employed  in  proclaiming  the 
splendid  affirmations  of  the  new  and  loftier  faith  that  is  dawning 
upon  man's  sight. 

Again  the  unlovely  contempt  which  so-called  liberals  often  visit 
on  still  more  advanced  phases  of  religious  thought,  and  especially 
on  the  mystical  philosophies  and  cults  of  our  day,  is  equally  out 
of  place.  Aside  from  the  evil  done  one's  own  soul  through  such 
display's  of  spiritual  arrogance  and  ill-temper,  it  will  be  well  to 
take  to  heart  the  noble  advice  of  Coleridge: 

"  There  are  errors  which  no  wise  man  will  treat  with  rude- 
ness, while  there  is  a  probability  that  they  may  be  the  refraction 
of  some  great  truth  still  below  the  horizon." 

Liberality  in  religion,  then,  is  not  to  hold  this  or  that  set  of 
opinions,  however  advanced.  It  is  not  to  hold  no  opinions  what- 
ever, and  be  alike  indifferent  to  all  the  problems  of  the  human 
mind.     It  is  not  to  belong  to  this  or  that  sect  or  fellowship. 

Liberalism  is  a  temper,  not  a  creed.  It  is  an  attitude  of  the 
mind  towards  truth,  a  disposition  of  the  heart  towards  mankind. 
It  is  a  pervading  spirit  of  freedom,  justice  and  chanty,  a  spirit 
to  be  found  in  and  outside  of  all  sects,  but  more  likely  to  exist 
in  men  of  free  and  progressive  opinion. 

To  cherish  this  spirit  and  advance  these  ideals  of  affirmative 
and  reverent  free-thought  is  the  task  which  the  National  Federa- 
tion of  Religious  Liberals  sets  itself.  It  has  a  mission  to  the 
free   as  well   as   to  the   orthodox  believer.     It   must   induce   the 


latter  to  form  a  higher  and  juster  opinion  of  reverent  free-thought 
and  to  deal  more  tolerantly  with  it.  It  must  awaken  in  the 
former  a  more  fair  and  irenic  temper  in  treating  of  orthodox  doc- 
trines and  those  who  uphold  them.  Above  all,  it  must  arouse  the 
liberal  thinker  to  more  earnest  efforts  in  behalf  of  his  own  prin- 
ciples and  ideals.  It  is  disastrous  for  him  to  deceive  himself  with 
the  current  sophisms  that:  "The  evolution  of  things  will  bring 
all  out  right  at  last,"  and  we  have  only  to  fall  back  indolently 
and  supinely  and  let  the  procession  pass  on  to  victory,  or  to  de- 
clare that  since  the  whole  course  of  events,  scientific,  moral,  so- 
cial and  mechanical  is  coming  "  our  way  "  we  have  no  duty  or 
responsibility  in  the  matter.  Such  indifference  to  the  opportuni- 
ties and  problems  of  our  time  is  nothing  less  than  criminal.  For 
we  are  each  and  every  one  a  factor  of  the  evolution,  and  our 
faithfulness,  or  our  want  of  zeal,  appreciably  affects  the  accelera- 
tion, the  character  and  the  scope  of  events.  No  one  can  measure 
and  no  one  can  escape  his  personal  share  of  responsibility  in  this 
divine  service  for  truth  and  humanity.  Loyalty  is  the  only  course 
that  assures  individual  happiness  and  social  salvation. 

It  may  be  that  things  are  tending  our  way  in  the  intellectual 
and  social  life  of  man.  If  so,  the  power  that  is  bringing  them 
our  way  is  the  dedication  of  human  wills  and  human  labors  to 
truth,  justice,  and  fraternity.  But  what  arrests  of  human  prog- 
ress, what  triumphs  of  reaction,  what  lapses  from  the  ideal,  what 
cruelty  and  persecution  and  agony  are  caused  by  man's  spiritual 
sluggishness  and  disloyalty  to  the  higher  vision!  And  what  are 
we  who  claim  to  be  heralds  and  types  of  the  new  and  larger 
faith,  doing  to  fit  ourselves  to  become  its  leaders,  inspirers  and 
guides?  What  are  we  contributing  to  frame  its  philosophy, 
deepen  its  reverence,  devise  its  worship,  shape  its  conduct,  organ- 
ize its  activities,  and  enlist  its  service  for  the  true,  the  beautiful 
and  the  good? 

Never  was  there  such  an  urgent  need  for  the  true  liberal  in  re- 
ligion, devout  as  well  as  free,  and  loving  as  well  as  earnest,  to 
dedicate  himself  to  these  higher  interests  of  humanity,  and  uniting 
with  other  like-minded  men  and  women  of  his  time  to  lead  the 
way  to  loftier  faith  and  more  enlightened  service. 

It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  new  Federation  will  seek  to  bear 


8 

strong  and  effective  testimony  in  behalf  of  the  great,  universal 
affirmations  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  life;  it  will  endeavor  to 
increase  the  faith  of  free  and  reasoning  men  in  the  underlying 
principles  of  pure  religion  held  in  the  spirit  of  perfect  liberty  and 
charity;  it  will  devote  enlarged  attention  to  the  paramount  inter- 
ests of  individual  character,  social  service,  and  good  citizenship. 
By  united  testimony  on  the  great  topics  of  American  thought  and 
life  it  will  seek  to  become  an  influence  for  good  in  the  community, 
and  to  cooperate  heartily  with  every  agency  in  State,  Church,  and 
School  which  aims  to  uplift  the  national  character  and  invigorate 
it  with  high  ethical  and  social  ideals. 

To  accomplish  these  ends  it  seeks  the  countenance  and  aid  of 
every  lover  of  religious  freedom  and  progress  in  the  American 
commonwealth,  and  invites  all,  without  reference  to  their  indi- 
vidual opinion  or  denominational  allegiance,  to  enroll  themselves 
in  its  membership.  Applications  for  this  purpose  may  be  made 
to  the  writer,  who,  as  its  secretary,  is  commissioned  to  receive 
adhesions  and  the  annual  fee  of  one  dollar  which  accompanies 
them.  The  office  of  the  Federation  is  at  25  Beacon  Street,  Bos- 
ton, Mass. 

II.    THE    FIRST   CONGRESS   IN    PHILADELPHIA 

It  was  fortunate  for  the  success  of  the  first  public  meeting  of  the 
National  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals  that  it  should  have  been 
held  under  the  hospitable  roof,  and  in  a  measure  under  the  au- 
spices of  the  Liberal  Friends  of  the  City  of  Brotherly  Love,  a 
society  whose  traditions  have  so  honorably  identified  it  with  reli- 
gious freedom  and  progress  while  its  relations  with  the  prevailing 
and  orthodox  systems  of  Christianity  have  yet  remained  cordial 
and  conciliatory. 

The  spiritual  tone  and  temper  of  these  fair-minded  and  gentle 
advocates  of  a  religion  of  liberty  and  love  communicated  itself 
to  all  who  participated  in  the  Philadelphia  meeting,  repressing 
harshness  of  utterance  and  aggressiveness  of  disposition,  if  any 
tendency  to  these  existed,  and  promoting  that  mutual  courtesy, 
that  readiness  to  understand  and  sympathize  with  opposing  forms 
of  belief,  that  large  inclusiveness  of  spirit  which  mark  the  true 


liberal  in  religion.  The  very  simplicity  of  the  old  Quaker  meet- 
ing-house in  which  the  sessions  were  held  rebuked  all  extravagance 
or  sensationalism  on  the  part  of  the  speakers,  and  promoted  the 
sincerity  and  soberness  with  which  the  great  themes  they  dealt 
with  were  presented. 

These  characteristic  aspects  of  the  Congress  were  well  exhib- 
ited at  its  very  first  session,  when  men  of  national  importance 
spoke  their  earnest  word  on  the  relation  of  Religious  Tolerance 
to  Good  Citizenship.  Their  utterances  are  elsewhere  reported 
in  this  volume,  but  it  would  be  impossible  to  reproduce  the  pro- 
found impressiveness  of  the  meeting  itself,  the  great  auditorium 
packed  with  nearly  2,000  hearers,  despite  the  rain  which  fell 
without,  the  eager  attention,  the  warm  response  to  the  sentiments 
of  the  speakers,  and  the  gratifying  assurance  to  those  who  for 
months  previous  had  planned  and  labored  hard  for  the  success  of 
the  Congress,  that  their  efforts  were  to  be  rewarded. 

These  experiences  were  repeated  at  every  subsequent  session. 
The  audiences  were  made  up  largely  of  residents  of  Philadelphia 
and  vicinity,  especially  of  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  but 
also  comprised  many  from  other  cities  and  States  of  the  Union, 
and  represented  a  score  of  religious  fellowships,  orthodox  and  lib- 
eral, Protestant  and  Catholic,  Jew  and  Christian.  In  numbers 
they  ranged  from  500  to  i  ,000  at  a  day  session,  while  in  the  even- 
ing every  seat  was  occupied. 

On  the  morning  of  the  second  day,  after  an  inspiring  word  of 
prayer  from  a  Universalist  brother,  and  the  Presidential  address, 
a  model  of  simplicity  and  brevity,  the  programme  devised  by  the 
committee  was  entered  upon.  Its  first  theme  was  The  Nature 
and  Mission  of  Religious  Liberalism.  Thoughtful,  large-minded, 
and  affirmative,  these  addresses  were  still  more  significant  as 
indicating  the  new  spirit  and  change  of  emphasis  which  char- 
acterize the  religious  liberalism  of  to-day,  its  respect  for  op- 
posing opinion,  its  recognition  of  the  historical  element  in  religious 
development,  its  sweet  reasonableness  in  argument,  its  inclusive 
sympathy,  combined  with  absolute  sincerity  of  statement  and  devo- 
tion to  the  truth.  These  qualities  are  admirably  displayed  in 
the  addresses  of  Revs.  Wm.  Channing  Gannett,  Frederick  W. 
Perkins,  ex-Gov.  Guild,  and  others  contained  in  this  volume,  as 


lO 

well  as  in  its  concluding  symposium,  "  The  Fellowship  of  the 
Spirit."  We  recommend  the  reading  of  them  to  both  radical  and 
conservative  believers. 

Tlie  Affirmations  of  the  Liberal  Faith  were  dealt  with  more 
particularly  at  the  third  session  of  the  Congress.  Its  general 
theme,  Religion  and  Modern  Life,  included  tributes  to  Charles 
Darwin  and  Abraham  Lincoln,  whose  centenaries  occurred  this 
year,  and  both  of  whom  by  their  lives  and  services  made  notable 
contributions  to  a  liberal  and  progressive  conception  of  religion. 
It  was  especially  fitting  that  an  exposition  of  the  great  doc- 
trine of  evolution,  a  philosophy  of  the  world-order  in  which 
our  modern  systems  of  faith  are  grounded,  should  precede  the 
papers  on  the  Bible,  the  Church  and  Jesus  Christ  which  were 
included  in  the  program.  These  last  are  living  questions  in  the 
religious  consciousness  of  to-day.  Presented  in  a  forceful  man- 
ner by  able  thinkers,  no  other  topics  aw'oke  a  wider  variety  of 
opinion  in  their  auditors,  both  in  support  of  and  dissent  from  the 
speakers.  Prof.  Foster's  paper,  especially,  while  it  moved  some  to 
enthusiastic  agreement,  especially  among  the  Society  of  Friends, 
whose  chief  seat  of  authority  in  religion  has  ever  been  the  inward 
witness  of  the  ever-present  Spirit  of  God  rather  than  the  historic 
personality  of  the  Christ  —  provoked  others,  in  discussions  that  fol- 
lowed, to  pained,  and  more  or  less  explosive,  affirmations  of  their 
loyalty  to  Christ  as  their  Savior,  Lord  and  God.  All  alike  were 
listened  to  with  coorteous  attention.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
in  presenting  Prof.  Foster's  paper  the  magnetic  personality  of 
the  man,  his  profound  reverence,  and  scholarly  aloofness  from  the 
sectarian  temper  cannot  also  be  reproduced. 

A  lively  discussion  was  precipitated  by  the  proposal  following 
Mr.  Bowen's  and  Rev.  Clay  MacCauley's  addresses,  given  else- 
where, that  the  Congress  take  a  hand  in  the  movement  already 
begun  under  Unitarian,  Universalist  and  liberal  German  au- 
spices to  conduct  foreign,  and  especially  foreign  medical  missions 
on  a  non-creedal,  non-sectarian  basis.  Our  Jewish  friends,  espe- 
cially, could  not  easily  reconcile  themselves  to  the  idea  of  a 
propaganda  under  Christian  influences,  whose  perverted  mission- 
ary zeal  has  so  often  wrought  them  cruel  injustice  and  wrong. 
Whether  the  motion  as  finally  modified   to  meet  objections  pos- 


II 

sesses  sufficient  significance  to  make  it  worth  while,  and  whether 
the  material  resources  at  the  command  of  the  Congress  are  suffi- 
cient to  permit  of  its  practical  fulfilment  is  doubtful.  In  any 
case  this  agitation  of  the  missionary  duty  of  Religious  Liberals 
towards  other  races  was  timely,  and  may  pave  the  way  to  action 
hereafter. 

No  sentiment  was  more  frequently  heard  on  the  lips  of  the  dele- 
gates at  these  meetings  than  that  religion  is  life,  and  has  little 
value  apart  from  life,  the  life  that  now  is.  A  careful  perusal  of 
this  volume  will  newly  prove  how  widely  modern  Christianity  has 
departed  from  that  interpretation  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus,  so  long 
regnant,  which  conceived  it  as  hostile  to  this  present  life  and 
chiefly  concerned  with  the  welfare  of  the  soul  in  another  and 
future  state,  and  which  made  the  supposed  interests  of  the  indi- 
vidual paramount  to  the  larger  good  of  the  community. 

In  these  respects  a  great  change  of  emphasis  is  taking  place  in 
Christendom,  whose  prophets  and  teachers  are  proclaiming  by 
word  and  example,  as  never  before,  a  religion  for  the  life  that 
now  is,  a  gospel  of  social  responsibility  and  social  service.  It  was 
inevitable  that  in  framing  the  program  of  the  Congress  this  aspect 
of  religion  should  be  included  and  certain  of  its  sessions  devoted 
to  the  serious  consideration  of  topics  of  political,  economic  and 
social  importance,  in  their  relation  to  religion  and  ethics.  The 
addresses  of  Prof.  F.  G.  Peabody,  Justice  Swaj^ze,  Alexander 
Johnson  and  John  Mitchell,  dealt  with  the  more  general  aspects 
of  social  duty,  and  with  the  papers  on  specific  and  burning  re- 
forms of  our  times,  such  as  The  Movement  for  International 
Peace,  the  questions  involved  in  Marriage  and  Divorce,  Child 
Labor,  and  Temperance,  form  in  their  aggregate  a  contribution  to 
the  social  ethics  of  our  day  which  go  far  to  justify  our  purpose 
and  aim  as  a  national  federation.  A  resolution  in  favor  of 
woman's  suffrage  introduced  by  Mrs.  W.  C.  Gannett  was  adopted, 
after  a  brief  but  strenuous  debate,  by  137  votes  to  16. 

The  closing  meeting  of  the  Congress  was  an  occasion  of  pro- 
found impressiveness.  In  the  speakers'  seats  were  assembled  the 
representatives  of  a  dozen  different  sects  and  fellowships.  After 
an  introductor}'^  word  from  Hon.  Isaac  H.  Clothier,  who  presided, 
and  a  ringing  declaration  in  behalf  of  "  Liberty  and  Union  in 


12 

Religion  "  by  the  venerable  dean  of  the  ministers  present, —  like 
Dr.  Channing,  "  always  young  for  liberty  " —  these  spokesmen  for 
freedom  of  thoujrht,  in  brief  addresses  reaffirmed  their  loyalty  to 
the  principles  on  which  the  Federation  is  founded  and  their  joy 
at  the  inspiration  and  goodly  fellowship  it  had  brought  them. 
Their  words,  for  the  most  part,  are  reproduced  in  this  volume, 
but  who  can  reproduce  the  fervor  of  spirit,  the  kindliness  of  look 
and  tone,  the  outpouring  of  the  heart,  with  which  they  were 
accompanied !  The  meeting  fitly  closed  with  a  brief  and  tender 
word  from  the  President  of  the  Congress,  Henry  W.  Wilbur, 
which  ended  with  a  prayer,  and  a  moment's  "  gathering  into  the 
quiet."  As  a  sympathetic  participant  in  the  meeting  reports  in 
the  organ  of  his  denomination.  The  C on gre Rationalist,  of  Boston : 

"  There  was  a  solemn  joy  during  the  closing  session  as  repre- 
sentatives of  once  persecuted  forms  of  faith  rose  to  commit  them- 
selves to  the  new-found  fellowship  of  character  and  service,  and 
in  the  solemn  devotional  hush  in  which  the  meeting  fitly  closed 
there  was  felt  the  brooding  of  the  Spirit  who  rests  upon  all  men's 
intellectual  strivings  and  incites  the  faithful  energies  of  those  who 
walk  alone  with  their  own  consciences." 

It  remains  to  be  said  that  the  testimonies  in  the  form  of  reso- 
lutions adopted  by  the  Congress  as  the  expression  of  its  opinion 
on  current  questions  of  personal  and  social  religion  will  be  found 
in  their  proper  place  in  this  volume.  A  feature  which  cannot  be 
reproduced,  however,  was  the  social  opportunities  afforded  by 
the  meetings,  the  interchanges  of  thought  and  sentiment  between 
its  members  which  culminated  on  Wednesday  evening  in  a  de- 
lightful reception  at  the  Hotel  Bellevue-Stratford,  tendered  the 
Congress  by  a  member  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  Some  300  per- 
sons were  present  and  addresses  were  made  by  Henry  W.  Wilbur, 
Revs.  Lewis  G.  Wilson,  secretary  of  the  American  Unitarian 
Association,  and  Chas.  W.  Wendte,  of  Boston,  Rev.  Hugo  Eisen- 
lohr  and  Rabbi  David  Philipson,  of  Cincinnati,  and  Rev.  Dr. 
A.  S.  Crapsey,  of  Rochester,  N.  Y.  Miss  Elizabeth  Powell 
Bond,  Dean  of  Swarthmore  College,  made  touching  reference 
to  Lucretia  Mott  and  other  brave  spirits,  members  of  the  Society 
of  Liberal  Friends,  whose  faithful  testimony  in  former  days  had 
made  possible  these  Philadelphia  meetings,  concluding  her  remarks 
with  the  lines  which  follow: 


13 


A  SUMMARY. 

From  height  to  height  of  thought  our  guides  have  led 
Our  feet  where  Truth's  most  holy  places  glow 
With  presence  of  the  Lord  —  our  privilege 
A  moment's  ecstasy  of  vision  clear, 
Ere  girding  on  fresh  armor  of  God's  knights. 
There  in  the  holiest  place  stood  those  who  plead 
Arrested  manhood's  cause  —  the  dwarfed,  fast  bound 
To  whirring  wheels,  or  in  the  earth's  dark  depths ; 
A  voice  for  womanhood  was  heard;  the  child's 
Sad  plaint  for  more  than  bread,  for  motherhood's 
Sweet  care,  and  freedom  with  the  birds  and  flowers. 

Forth  must  we  fare  to  think  the  highest  thought, 
To  be  swift  feet  and  loving  hands  for  Him 
Who  needs  our  thought  made  manifest  through  deed; 
On  earth  to  plant  the  kingdom  of  God's  heaven. 

Another  social  occasion  was  an  automobile  excursion  to  the 
beautiful  suburbs  of  Philadelphia,  arranged  for  by  the  Hospitality 
Committee,  which  was  made  up  of  members  of  All  Souls'  and 
Church  of  the  Restoration,  Universalist,  the  First,  Spring  Garden, 
and  Germantown  Unitarian  Churches,  the  Ethical  Society,  the 
Hebrew  Temples  Keneseth  Israel  and  Rodeph  Shalom,  as  well 
as  the  Society  of  Friends.  Its  chairman.  Miss  Susan  W.  Janney, 
was  indefatigable  in  providing  for  the  reception  and  entertain- 
ment of  the  delegates. 

The  number  of  members  enrolled  was  i,oio.  The  total  monej'S 
received  by  the  treasurer,  Mr.  Henry  Justice,  from  membership 
fees  and  contributions  were  $1,164.  To  this  amount  should  be 
added  some  $300,  expended  for  preliminary  expenses  in  organiz- 
ing the  Federation,  which  sum  was  donated  by  the  American 
Unitarian  Association.  The  latter  also  contributed  the  time  and 
services  of  its  foreign  secretary  for  the  furtherance  of  this  object. 
The  Congress  has  thus  been  enabled  to  meet  all  its  expenses,  In- 
cluding the  printing  of  the  present  volume.  Especial  thanks  are 
due  to  Messrs.  Isaac  H.  Clothier,  Henrj^  C.  Lea,  Howard  H. 
Furness,  and  Chas.  W.  Eliot  for  their  generosity  to  this  cause. 

Acknowledgments  are  also  due  to  the  many  men  and  women 
who  helped  by  wise  counsel  and  unselfish  service  to  make  the  Con- 


u 

gress  a  success,  as  well  as  to  various  ciiurches  and  associations. 
Dr.  Samuel  A.  Eliot,  President  of  the  American  Unitarian  Asso- 
ciation, Dr.  Frederick  A.  Bisbee,  editor  of  the  Universalist  Leader, 
Edwin  D.  Mead,  President  of  the  Free  Religious  Association  of 
America,  and  Dr.  Jenkins  Lloyd  Jones,  editor  of  Unity,  and  the 
inspiring  soul  of  The  Congress  of  Religion,  were  prominent  among 
these.  Especially  noteworthy  was  the  generous  interest  taken  by 
the  two  last-named  in  the  Federation,  for  whose  activities  the  asso- 
ciations they  represent  may  be  said  to  have  blazed  the  way  and 
prepared  the  ground.  They  gave  their  younger  sister  and  ally 
in  the  work  of  religious  enlightenment  and  reform  an  unselfish 
and  warm  welcome  and  the  benefit  of  their  large  experience. 

The  Congress  was  greatly  indebted  to  the  public  press  of  the 
United  States,  and  especially  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  for  the 
large  attention  it  paid  to  its  sessions,  heralding  the  organization 
of  the  Federation  and  reporting  its  proceedings  and  papers.  Cer- 
tain religious  journals  printed  the  Congress  program  in  full,  and 
gave  large  space  to  reports  of  its  sessions,  among  them  The  Chris- 
tian Register,  Universalist  Leader,  The  Unitarian,  Friend's  In- 
telligencer, Unity,  Reform  Advocate,  and  Geist  und  Gemueth, 
while  others,  like  the  Outlook,  Congregationalist  and  Herald  of 
Gospel  Liberty,  contained  friendly  notices.  In  England  The 
London  Inquirer,  and  in  Germany  Die  Christliche  Welt  con- 
tained full  and  excellent  reports,  the  latter  written  by  Rev.  Hans 
Haupt,  of  North  Tonawanda,  N.  Y.,  a  delegate  at  the  meetings. 
From  the  League  of  Progressive  Thoughts  and  Social  Service, 
instituted  by  the  Rev.  R.  J.  Campbell  in  England,  a  cordial  invi- 
tation to  enter  into  fraternal  relations  with  it  has  been  received. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  give  due  credit  to  all  who  aided  in 
the  conduct  of  the  Congress,  but  acknowledgments  should  be 
returned  to  its  President,  Henry  W.  Wilbur,  whose  wisdom  guided 
and  whose  happy  wit  enlivened  the  meetings;  to  Rev.  G.  G.  Mills, 
of  Watertown,  Mass.,  who  faithfully  assisted  the  Secretary;  to 
Rev.  Geo.  H.  Ferris,  D.D.,  who  was  a  perennial  source  of  inspira- 
tion ;  to  Rabbis  Joseph  Krauskopf  and  Henry  Berkowitz,  whose 
counsel  and  help  were  invaluable;  to  Revs.  Dr.  J.  Clarence  Lee 
and  J.  L.  Dowson,  instant  and  untiring  in  service;  to  Revs.  Fred- 
erick A.  Hinckley  and  Oscar  B.  Hawes,  and  R.  Barclay  Spicer 


15 

and  S.  B.  Weston,  members  of  local  committees;  and  especially  to 
the  chairman  of  the  Business  Committee,  Rev.  Charles  E.  St. 
John,  whose  devotion  and  resources  never  flagged,  and  whose 
large  experience  and  excellent  judgment  skillfully  guided  the  pro- 
ceedings. 

In  summing  up  the  results  attained  by  the  Congress  attention 
may  be  called  first  to  its  inclusiveness  of  spirit. 

Not  only  liberal  Christians,  so-called,  but  members  of  orthodox 
bodies,  spoke  from  its  "platform  and  took  part  in  its  proceedings; 
not  Protestants  only,  but  Roman  Catholics,  and  Jews,  and  Ethical 
Culturists,  and  free-thinkers  of  various  shades  of  opinion,  while 
Dr.  Booker  T.  Washington  and  others  represented  the  colored 
race.  In  spite  of  all  these  wide  divergencies  of  opinion  unbroken 
harmony  reigned  throughout  the  sessions.  Furthermore  not  only 
men  but  women  spoke  at  the  meetings  and  shared  in  their  con- 
duct. Secondly,  the  large  part  borne  by  the  laity  in  the  Congress 
was  noteworthy  and  in  refreshing  contrast  to  the  almost  exclu- 
sively clerical  representation  of  many  religious  assemblies.  Nine- 
teen of  the  forty-five  speakers  on  the  program  belonged  to  the 
laity  —  surely  an  encouraging  sign  of  the  religious  times.  Fi- 
nally, the  emphasis  laid  on  the  affirmations  of  religious  faith,  rather 
than  on  negations,  the  growing  endeavor  not  only  to  speak  the 
truth  but  to  "  speak  it  in  love,"  and  the  identification  of  true  re- 
ligion with  the  life  of  love  and  service,  good  citizenship,  industrial 
righteousness  and  social  reform,  were  characteristics  of  the  first 
Congress  of  the  National  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals,  and 
entitle  it  to  the  sympathetic  attention  and  generous  support  of 
enlightened  and  progressive  believers  throughout  the  American 
commonwealth. 


i6 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  FEDERATION  OF 
RELIGIOUS  LIBERALS  1909-10 

President,  Henry  W.  Wilbur,  140  North  15th  Street,  Phila- 
delphia. 

General  Secretary,  Rev.  Charles  W.  Wendte,  D.D.,  25  Beacon 
Street,  Boston,  to  whom  communications  may  be  addressed. 

Treasurer,  Henry  Justice,  122  South  Front  Street,  Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 

Rev.  Frederick  A.  Bisbee,  D.D.,  Boston,  Mass.,  Editor  Univer- 
sal ist  Leader. 

Rev.  Algernon  S.  Crapsey,  D.D.,  Brotherhood  House,  Rochester, 
N.  Y. 

Rev.  Samuel  A.  Eliot,  D.D.,  President  American  Unitarian  As- 
sociation, Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  Hugo  Eisenlohr,  Pastor  German  Evangelical  Church,  Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio. 

Rev.  George  H.  Ferris,  D.D.,  Pastor  First  Baptist  Church,  Phila- 
delphia. 

Professor  George  B.  Foster,  Ph.D.,  University  of  Chicago. 

Rev.  Frank  O.  Hall,  D.D.,  Minister  Church  of  the  Divine  Pa- 
ternity, Universalist,  New^  York. 

President  Frederick  W.  Hamilton,  D.D.,  Tufts  College,  Mass. 

Mrs.  Julia  Ward  Howe,   Boston,   Mass. 

Miss  Susan  W.  Jannej^,  Philadelphia. 

Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  LL.D.,  Minister  Abraham  Lincoln  Cen- 
tre, Chicago,  111. 

Rabbi  Joseph  Krauskopf,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Rev.  J.  Clarence  Lee,  D.D.,  Pastor  Church  of  the  Restoration, 
Universalist,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Rev.  Henry  Mottet,  D.D.,  Rector  Church  of  the  Holy  Com- 
munion,  New  York. 


17 

Edwin  D.  Mead,  President  of  the  Free  Religious  Association  of 
America,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton,  D.D.,  East  Hampton,  Long  Island, 
N.  Y. 

Rabbi  David  Philipson,  D.D.,  President  Central  Conference  of 
American  Rabbis,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Rev.  Charles  E.  St.  John,  Pastor  First  Unitarian  Church,  Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

Mrs.  Anna  Garlin  Spencer,  Director  Summer  School  of  Ethics, 
New  York. 

Rev.  J.  J.  Summerbell,  D.D.,  Christian,  Dayton,  Ohio. 

Rev.  Carl  A.  Voss,  D.D.,  Pastor  Smithfield  Street  German  Evan- 
gelical Church,  Pittsburg,  Ohio. 

Rev.  J.  B.  Weston,  D.D.,  President  Christian  Biblical  Institute, 
Defiance,   Ohio. 

S.  Burns  Weston,  Director  Ethical  Culture  Society,  Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

Rev.  Charles  W.  Wendte,  D.D.,  Foreign  Secretary  of  the  Ameri- 
can Unitarian  Association,  Boston,  Mass. 

Henr}'  W.  Wilbur,  General  Secretary  of  the  Committee  for  Ad- 
vancement of  Friends'  Principles. 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  CONGRESS  OF  RELIGIOUS 

LIBERALS 

The  National  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals  is  affiliated  with 
the  International  Congress  of  Religious  Liberals. 

The  purpose  of  this  Congress  is  "  to  open  communication  with 
those  in  all  lands  who  are  striving  to  unite  pure  religion  and  per- 
fect liberty,  and  to  increase  fellowship  and  cooperation  among 
them." 

It  seeks  to  bring  into  closer  union  for  exchange  of  ideas,  mutual 
service,  and  the  promotion  of  their  common  aims  the  historic  lib- 
eral churches,  the  liberal  elements  in  all  churches,  scattered  liberal 
congregations,  and  isolated  workers  for  religious  freedom  and 
progress  in  many  lands. 

It  aims  to  be  a  source  of  encouragement  and  strength  to  them 
in  their  struggles  against  dogmatic  intolerance  and  ecclesiastical 
tyranny. 

It  cultivates  large  and  fraternal  relations  with  the  great  liberal 
movements  in  religion  now  going  on  under  various  names  and 
auspices  throughout  the  world. 

To  promote  these  ends,  it  holds  a  triennial  Congress  in  some 
acknowledged  seat  of  religious  enlightenment  and  freedom. 
Largely  attended  and  successful  m.eetings  have  been  held  in  Lon- 
don (1901),  Amsterdam  (1903),  Geneva  (1905),  and  Boston 
(1907).  At  the  last  named  nearly  2,400  members  were  en- 
rolled. The  papers  and  proceedings  of  these  Congresses  have 
been  published.  The  next  international  Congress  will  be  held 
at  Berlin,  Germany,  August  6-10,  1910.  A  general  participa- 
tion  is   invited. 

Some  93  religious  associations  are  now  affiliated  with  the  Coun- 
cil, send  official  delegates  to  its  meetings,  and  make  it  the  inter- 
national organ  of  their  fraternal  relations  with  each  other. 

The  Committee  for  1907-10  consists  of  Rev.  Samuel  A.  Eliot, 
D.D.,  Boston,  U.  S.  A.,  Chairman;  Rev.  Charles  W.  Wendte, 
D.D.,  25  Beacon  Street,  Boston,  Mass.,  U.  S.  A.,  General  Secre- 
tary   (to  whom   communications   may   be   addressed)  ;    Prof.    G. 


19 

Boros,  D.D.,  Kolozsvar,  Hungary;  Rev.  W.  Copeland  Bowie, 
London,  England;  Prof.  J.  Estlin  Carpenter,  D.D.,  Oxford, 
England ;  Prof,  B.  D.  Eerdmans,  D.D.,  Leiden,  Holland ;  Rev. 
George  A.  Gordon,  D.D.,  Boston,  U.  S.  A.;  Rev  P.  H.  Hugen- 
holtz,  Jr.,  Amsterdam,  Holland;  Prof.  E.  Montet,  D.D.,  Ge- 
neva, Switzerland;  Prof.  Martin  Rade,  D.D.,  Marburg,  Ger- 
many; Rev.  J.  Emile  Roberty,  Paris,  France;  Rev.  G.  Schoen- 
holzer,  Zurich,  Switzerland;  Miss  IVL  B.  Westenholz,  Copen- 
hagen, Denmark;  Rev.  Max  Fischer,  D.D.,  Berlin,  Germany; 
Prof.  G.  Bonet-Maury,  Paris,  France. 


20 


ILLUSTRATIVE  READINGS 


THE  ONE  RELIGION. 

"  All  humble,  merciful,  just,  pious,  and  devout  souls  are  everywhere 
of  One  religion.  Holiness,  purity,  and  charity  are  not  the  exclusive 
possession  of  any  church  in  the  world,  but  every  system  has  produced 
men  and  women  of  the  most  exalted  character." 

SPIRITUAL  INDEPENDENCE. 

To  conceit  that  men  must  form  their  faith  according  to  the  pre- 
scriptions of  other  mortal  men  is  both  ridiculous  and  dangerous.  .  .  . 
The  understanding  can  never  be  convinced  by  other  arguments  than 
what  are  adequate  to  its  own  nature.  Force  may  make  hypocrites,  but 
it  can  make  no  converts. —  William  Penn. 

A  PROPHECY. 

The  time  is  coming  when  the  more  liberal  of  the  Catholic  and 
Protestant  branches  of  Christ's  Church  will  advance  and  meet  upon 
a  common  platform,  and  form  a  broad  Christian  community  in  which 
all  shall  be  identified,  in  spite  of  all  diversities  and  differences  in  non- 
essential matters  of  faith.  So  shall  the  Baptists  and  Methodists,  Trini- 
tarian and  Unitarian,  the  Ritualists  and  the  Evangelical  all  unite  in  a 
broad  and  universal  religious  organization,  loving,  honoring,  serving 
the  common  body,  while  retaining  the  peculiarites  of  each  sect.  Only 
the  broad  of  each  sect  shall  for  the  present  come  forward :  others  will 
follow  in  time.  The  base  remains  where  it  is :  the  vast  masses  at  the 
foot  of  each  church  will  yet  remain,  perhaps  for  centuries,  where  they 
now  are.  But,  as  you  look  to  the  lofty  heights  above,  you  will  see  all 
the  bolder  spirits  and  broad  souls  of  each  church  pressing  forward, 
onward,  heavenward. 

Come,  then,  my  friends,  ye  broad-hearted  of  all  the  churches,  ad- 
vance and  shake  hands  with  each  other,  and  promote  that  spiritual  fel- 
lowship, that  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  Jesus  predicted. —  Keshuh 
Chnndcr  Sen,  Hindu  Tlicist,  in  1833. 


21 

PROGRAM  OF  THE 

FIRST  CONGRESS 

OF    THE 

NATIONAL  FEDERATION   OF  RELIGIOUS   LIB- 
ERALS 

HELD   IN 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  April  27,  28,  29  and  30,   1909. 

The  sessions  of  the  Congress  were  held  in  the  meeting  house  of 
the  religious  society  of  Friends,  Race  Street,  near  North  Fif- 
teenth Street,   Philadelphia. 

OFFICERS  OF  THE  CONGRESS 

President,  Henry  W.  Wilbur,  140  North  15th  Street,  Phila- 
delphia. 

General  Secretary,  Charles  W.  Wendte,  D.D.,  25  Beacon  Street, 
Boston,  to  whom  communications  may  be  addressed. 

Treasurer,  Henry  Justice,  122  South  Front  Street,  Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

HONORARY  VICE-PRESIDENTS 

Rev.  J.  Coleman  Adams,  D.D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  Neal  Barney,  Lynn,  Mass. 

George  Batchelor,  Editor  Christian  Register,  Boston,  Mass. 

Elizabeth  Powell  Bond,  Philadelphia,   Pa. 

Samuel  McChord  Crothers,  D.D.,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

William  W.  Cocks,  Congressman,  Long  Island,  N.  Y. 

Robert  Collyer,   Litt.D.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Joseph  H.  Crooker,  D.D.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Gen.  Newton  M.  Curtis,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


22 

Mrs.  Caroline  H.  Dall,  LL.D.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

William   L.   Douglas,   ex-Governor  of   Massachusetts,   Brockton, 

Mass. 
Eben  S.  Draper,  Governor  of  Massachusetts. 
Charles    W.    Eliot,    LL.D.,    President    of    Harvard    University, 

Cambridge,   Mass. 
Samuel  A.   Eliot,  D.D.,   President  American  Unitarian  Associa- 
tion, Boston,  Mass. 
William    H.    P.    Faunce,    LL.D.,    President    Brown    University, 

Providence,  R.  L 
Lewis  B.  Fisher,  D.D.,  President  Lombard  College,  Galesburg, 

111. 
Rabbi  Charles  Fleischer,  Boston,  Mass. 
Henry  P.  Forbes,   D.D.,  President  Theological  School,  Canton, 

N.  Y. 
Miss  Emma  F.  Foster,  President  Woman's  National  Missionary 

Association  of  the  Universalist  Church,  Boston,  Mass. 
Horace  Howard  Furness,  LL.D.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Rev.  Miss  Eleanor  E.  Gordon,  Des  Moines,  la. 
Mrs.  Frances  A.  Hackley,  Tarrytown,  N.  Y. 
Edward  Everett  Hale,  D.D.,  Chaplain  United  States  Senate. 
James  S.  Haviland,  New  Rochelle,  N.  Y. 
Rabbi  Maximillian  Heller,  New  Orleans,   La. 
Rabbi  Emil  G.  Hirsch,  D.D.,  Chicago,  111. 

Jesse  H.  Holmes,  Ph.D.,  Swarthmore  College,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Mrs.  Julia  Ward   Howe,   Boston,  Mass. 
Charles  L.  Hutchinson,  Chicago,  111. 
William    De   Witt    Hyde,  LL.D.,    President    Bowdoin    College, 

Brunswick,   Me. 
William  M.  Jackson,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Dr.  O.  Edward  Janney,  Baltimore,  Md. 

David  Starr  Jordan,  President  Stanford  University,  California. 
Rabbi  J.  Leonard  Levy,  D.D.,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 
John  D.  Long,  LL.D.,  Hingham,  Mass. 
Miss  Emma  C.  Low,  President  National  Alliance  of  Unitarian 

Women,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 
Lee  S.  McCollester,  D.D.,  Detroit,  Mich. 


23 

Prof.  Arthur  C.  McGiffert,  D.D.,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 
Benjamin  H.  Miller,  Ashton,  Md. 
Mrs.  Sarah  T.  Miller,  Ashton,  Md. 
J.  T.  Mitchell,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Prof.  George  F.  Moore,  D.D.,  Theological  School  of  Harvard 

University,   Cambridge,   Mass. 
William  J.  Ogden,   Baltimore,   Md. 
A.  Mitchell  Palmer,  Congressman,  Stroudsburg,  Pa. 
Edward  A.  Pennock,  Chatham,  Pa. 
Frederick  W.  Perkins,  D.D.,  Lynn,  Mass. 
Jacob  H.  Schiff,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Jacob    G.    Schurman,    LL.D.,    President   of   Cornell   University, 

Ithaca,  N.  Y. 
Edward  C.  Stokes,  ex-Governor  of  New^  Jersey,  Trenton,  N.  J. 
Jabez  T.  Sunderland,  D.D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Joseph   Swain,    LL.D.,   President   Swarthmore   College,    Swarth- 

more.  Pa. 
Dr.  Booker  T.  Washington,  President  Tuskegee  Institute. 
Mrs.  Helen  Magill  White,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 


24 

THE  FOUNDERS  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY. 

If  we  were  to  single  out  the  men  who  from  the  beginning  of  our 
colonial  state  until  the  present  time  have  most  eminently  contributed 
to  fostering  and  securing  religious  freedom,  who  have  made  this  coun- 
try of  ours  the  haven  of  refuge  from  ecclesiastical  tyranny  and  persecu- 
tion, who  have  set  an  example  more  puissant  than  army  or  navy  for 
freeing  the  conscience  of  men  from  civil  interference,  and  have  leavened 
the  mass  of  intolerance  wherever  the  name  of  America  is  known,  I 
would  mention  first  the  Baptist,  Roger  Williams,  who  maintained  the 
principle  that  the  civil  powers  have  no  right  to  meddle  in  matters  of 
conscience,  and  who  founded  a  state  with  that  principle  as  its  keystone. 
I  would  mention  second  the  Catholic,  Lord  Baltimore,  the  proprietor 
of  Maryland,  to  whom  belongs  the  credit  of  having  established  liberty 
in  matters  of  worship  which  was  second  only  to  Rhode  Island.  I  would 
name  third  the  Quaker,  William  Penn,  whose  golden  motto  was  "  We 
must  yield  the  liberties  we  demand."  Fourth  on  the  list  is  Thomas 
Jefferson,  that  "  arch  infidel,"  as  he  has  been  termed  by  some  religious 
writers,  who  overthrew  the  established  church  in  his  own  state,  and 
then,  with  prophetic  statesmanship,  made  it  impossible  for  any  church 
to  establish  itself  under  our  national  constitution  or  in  any  way  to 
abridge  the  rights  of  conscience. —  Oscar  S.  Straus,  in  "  Religious  Lib- 
erty in  the  United  States." 

RELIGIOUS  BELIEF  AND  PUBLIC  OFFICE. 

What  if  I  differ  from  some  religious  apprehensions?  Am  I  there- 
fore incompatible  with  human  societies?  ...  I  know  not  any  unfit 
for  political  society  but  those  who  maintain  principles  subversive  of 
industry,  fidelity,  justice,  and  obedience.  .  .  .  Five  things  are  requi- 
site for  a  good  officer, —  ability,  clean  hands,  despatch,  patience,  and 
impartiality. —  William  Penn. 

To  discriminate  against  a  thoroughly  upright  citizen  because  he 
belongs  to  some  particular  church,  or  because,  like  Abraham  Lincoln, 
he  has  not  avowed  his  allegiance  to  any  church,  is  an  outrage  against 
that  liberty  of  conscience  which  is  one  of  the  foundations  of  American 
life.  You  are  entitled  to  know  whether  a  man  seeking  your  suffrage 
is  a  man  of  clean  and  upright  life,  honorable  in  all  his  dealings  with 
his  fellows,  and  fit  by  qualification  and  purpose  to  do  well  in  the  great 
office  for  which  he  is  a  candidate;  but  you  are  not  entitled  to  know 
matters  which  lie  purely  between  himself  and  his  Maker. —  Theodore 
Roosevelt. 

RELIGIOUS    BELIEF   AND   GOOD   CITIZENSHIP. 

We  love  and  revere  this  country  as  our  home  and  fatherland  for 
us  and  our  children,  and  therefore  consider  it  our  paramount  duty 
to   sustain   and   support  the   government,   to   favor   by  all   means   the 


25 


PROGRAM  OF  THE  CONGRESS 
TUESDAY  EVENING,  APRIL  27,     8  O'CLOCK 

First  and  opening  session  of  the  Congress.  Welcome  by  the 
President  of  the  Congress,  Henrj^  W.  Wilbur,  of  Philadelphia. 

Topic  of  the  session,  "  RELIGIOUS  Tolerance  and  Good 
Citizenship." 

Mutual  toleration  and  good  will  between  all  classes,  races,  and 
churches  of  the  republic  a  fundamental  condition  of  religious  and 
civil  welfare. 

8.20.  Address,  "  The  Jew  and  Good  Citizenship."  Oscar  S. 
Straus,  of  New  York,  late  United  States  Secretary  of  Commerce 
and  Labor.* 

8.40.  Address,  "  The  Roman  Catholic  and  Good  Citizenship." 
Charles  J.  Bonaparte,  of  Baltimore,  late  Attorney-General  of  the 
United  States. 

9.00.  Address,  "  The  Protestant  and  Good  Citizenship." 
President  W.  H.  P.  Faunce,  of  Brown  University,  Providence, 
R.  I. 

9.20.  Address,  "  The  Negro  and  Good  Citizenship."  Dr. 
Booker  T.  Washington,  Principal  Tuskegee  Institute. 

Dismission. 

"  With  malice  toward  none,  with  charity  for  all,  with  firmness 
in  the  right  as  God  gives  us  to  see  the  right,  let  us  strive  to  do 
all  which  may  achieve  a  just  and  lasting  peace  among  ourselves 
and  with   all  nations." 


system  of  free  education,  leaving  religious  instruction  to  the  care 
of  the  different  denominations. —  From  Resolutions  of  Conference  of 
American  Rabbis,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  1870. 

Fifteen  million  Catholics  live  their  lives  in  our  land  with  undis- 
turbed belief  in  the  perfect  harmony  existing  between  their  religion 
and  their  duties  as  American  citizens.  It  never  occurs  to  their  minds 
to  question  the  truth  of  a  belief  which  all  their  experience  confirms. 
Love  of  religion  and  love  of  country  burn  together  in  their  hearts. 
They  prefer  our  form  of  government  before  any  other.     They  admire 

*  Mr.  Straus  was  at  the  last  moment  prevented  from  keeping  his  engagement 
by  the  illness  of  a  member  of  his  family.  Rabbi  David  Phillipson  of  Cincin- 
nati, at  a  subsequent  session  of  the  Congress,  gave  an  address  on  the  theme 
assigned  to  :Mr.   Straus,  a  report  of  vk-hich  will  be  found  in  this  volume. 


26 

its  institutions  and  the  spirit  of  its  laws.  They  accept  the  Consti- 
tution without  reserve,  with  no  desire,  as  CathoHcs,  to  see  it  changed 
in  any  feature.     They  can  with  a  clear  conscience  swear  to  uphold  it. 

The  separation  of  Church  and  State  in  this  country  seems  to  them 
the  natural,  inevitable  and  best  conceivable  plan,  the  one  that  would 
work  best  among  us,  both  for  the  good  of  religion  and  of  the  State. 
Any  change  in  their  relations  they  would  contemplate  with  dread. — 
Cardinal  Gibbons,  in  North  American  Revieiv,  March,  1909. 

Give  me  liberty  to  know,  to  utter,  and  to  argue  freely  according 
to  conscience,  above  all  liberties.  .  .  .  How  many  other  things 
might  be  tolerated  in  peace  and  left  to  conscience,  had  we  but  charity, 
and  were  it  not  the  chief  stronghold  of  our  hypocrisy  to  be  ever 
judging  one  another. —  John  Milton. 

"  No  race  can  prosper  till  it  learns  that  there  is  as  much  dignity 
in  tilling  a  field  as  in  writing  a  poem." 

"  In  the  economy  of  God  there  is  but  one  standard  by  which  an 
individual  can  succeed, —  there  is  but  one  for  a  race.  .  .  .  We 
are  to  be  tested  in  our  patience,  our  forbearance,  our  perseverance, 
our  power  to  endure  wrong,  to  withstand  temptations,  to  economize, 
to  acquire  and  use  skill  in  our  ability  to  compete,  to  succeed  in 
commerce,  to  disregard  the  superficial  for  the  real,  the  appearance 
for  the  substance,  to  be  great  and  yet  small,  learned  and  yet  simple, 
high  and  yet  the  servant  of  all." — Booker  T.  Washington. 

RELIGIOUS  LIBERALISM. 

George  Fox  —  The  basis  of  his  teaching  was  the  belief  that  each  soul 
is  in  religious  matters  answerable  not  to  its  fellows,  but  to  God  alone, 
without  priestly  mediation,  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  immediately 
present  in  every  soul,  and  is  thus  a  direct  cause  of  illumination.  From 
this  central  belief  flowed  two  important  practical  consequences,  both 
essentially  modern :  one  was  complete  toleration,  the  other  was  com- 
plete equality  of  human  beings  before  the  law. —  John  Fiske. 

PROGRESS  IN  RELIGION. 

The  whole  system  of  traditional  orthodoxy,  Greek,  Latin,  and 
Protestant,  must  progress,  or  it  will  be  left  behind  the  age,  and  lose 
its  hold  on  thinking  men.  The  Church  must  keep  pace  with  civi- 
lization, adjust  herself  to  the  modern  conditions  of  religious  and 
political  freedom,  and  accept  the  established  results  of  biblical  and 
historical  criticism  and  natural  science. 

God  speaks  in  history  and  science  as  well  as  in  the  Bible  and  the 
Church,  and  He  cannot  contradict  Himself.  Truth  is  sovereign, 
and  must  and  will  prevail  over  all  ignorance,  error,  and  prejudice. — 
Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  address  at  the  Parliament  of  Religions  in  Chicago. 


27 


WEDNESDAY  MORNLNG,  APRIL  28,  9-30  a.  m. 

SECOND    SESSION    SESSION    OF    THE   CONGRESS 

Topic,  "  The  Nature  and  Mission  of  Religious  Liber- 
alism." 

9.30.  Devotional  Service.  Conducted  by  Rev.  John  Clar- 
ence Lee,  D.D.,  Pastor  Universalist  Church  of  the  Restoration, 
Philadelphia. 

9.40.  Presidential  Address.  Henry  W.  Wilbur,  Secretary 
Committee  for  the  Advancement  of  Friends'  Principles,  Phila- 
delphia. 

10.00.  Secretary's  Report.  Rev.  Charles  W.  Wendte,  For- 
eign Secretary  American  Unitarian  Association,  Boston.* 

10.10.     Business.     Appointment    of    Committees. 

10.15.  Address:  topic,  "What  is  Religious  Liberalism?" 
Rev.  William  Channing  Gannett,  D.D.,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

10.40.  Address:  topic,  "What  Liberal  Religion  Does  for 
Man's  Higher  Welfare  and  Happiness."  President  Frederick 
W.  Hamilton,  D.D.,  Tufts  College,  Boston,  Mass. 

1 1 .00.     Discussion. 

11.30.  Address:  topic,  "What  Liberal  Religion  has  done  for 
America."  Edwin  D.  Mead,  President  of  the  Free  Religious 
Association,  Boston,  Mass. 

12.00,     Discussion. 

12.30.     Adjournment. 


THE  INNER  LIGHT. 


Having  for  a  considerable  time  past  found,  from  full  conviction, 
that  scarcely  anything  is  so  baneful  to  the  present  and  future  hap- 
piness and  welfare  of  mankind  as  a  submission  to  tradition  and 
popular  opinion,  I  have  been  led  to  see  the  necessity  of  investigating 
for  myself  all  customs  and  doctrines  of  a  moral  and  religious  nature, 
either  verbally  or  historically  communicated,  by  the  best  and  greatest 
of  men  or  angels,  and  not  to  sit  down  satisfied  with  anything  but  a 
plain,  clear  testimony  of  the  spirit  and  word  of  life  and  light  in  my 
own  heart  and  conscience. —  Elias  Hicks. 

*  The  substance  of  this  report  is  included  in  the  Introduction  to  this  volume. 


28 


THE  LIBERAL  FAITH. 

A  religion  wide  as  the  widest  outlook  of  the  human  mind,  a 
religion  free  as  human  thought,  concurrent  with  reason,  co-ordinate 
with  science;  a  religion  in  which  the  present  predominates  over 
the  past,  and  the  future  over  the  present,  in  which  judgment  tops 
authority,  and  vision  outruns  tradition, —  this  is  the  instant  demand 
of  a  liberal  faith. —  Frederick  H.  Hedge,  D.  D. 

"Why  does  the  meadow  flower  its  bloom  expand? 
Because  the  lovely  little  flower  is  free 
Down  to  its  roots,  and  in  that  freedom  bold. 
And  so  the  grandeur  of  the  forest  tree 
Comes  not  from  casting  in  a  formal  mould, 
But   from  its  own  divine  vitality."  Wordsworth. 

THE  LIBERAL  PROBLEM. 

Our  problem  is  not  primarily  intellectual,  but  moral.  It  is  the 
reconciliation  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth  with  the  Spirit  of  Devotion. 
Our  task  is  to  bring  together  thought  and  reverence,  the  fearless 
mind  and  the  uplifted  heart. —  Rev.  A.  W.  Jackson. 

The  truly  liberal  build  no  citadel  for  themselves ;  they  only  parol 
and  keep  the  streets  of  the  free  city. —  Julia  Ward  Howe. 

Liberty  is  conservative:  it  builds  up;  it  is  like  the  sap  of  the  oak 
that  courses  to  every  twig  and  root,  creating  as  it  goes  new  genius, 
developing  ever  more  perfect  forms,  and  ever  greater  strength. 
License  is  liberty  made  insane  —  the  household  fire  become  a  con- 
flagration.—  Celia  Burleigh. 

All  progress  is  from  less  to  more  freedom ;  from  ignorance  and 
subordination  to  intelligent  self-direction. —  Ibid. 

We  must  look  forward  in  trust  to  a  better  future.  The  difficulty, 
however,  is  this :  a  narrow  faith  has  much  more  energy  than  an 
enlightened  faith ;  the  world  belongs  to  will  much  more  than  to 
wisdom.  It  is  not,  then,  certain  that  liberty  will  triumph  over 
fanaticism,  and,  besides,  independent  thought  will  never  have  the 
force  of  prejudice. —  Henry  Frederick  Amiel. 

'  Truth  is  great,  and  must  prevail ; 

Write  the  adage,  where?  and  when? 
Truth  has  failed,  will   fail  again, 
If  not  backed  by  earnest  men." 

A.  J.  Ellis. 

Great  is  truth  and  stronger  than  all  things.  Truth  abideth  and 
is  strong  forever;  she  liveth  and  conquereth  forevermore. —  Esdras, 
First  Book,  chapter  iv. 


29 


WEDNESDAY  AFTERNOON,  APRIL  28,  2  p.  m. 
SECOND  SESSION    (continued) 

2.00.     Address :   topic,    "  Liberal   Religion   a   Positive   Faith." 

Ex-Governor  Hon.  Curtis  Guild,  Jr.,  of  Boston,  Mass. 

2.20.  Address:  topic,  "The  Obligations  and  Opportunities 
of  Religious  Liberalism  in  America  To-day."  Rev.  Frederic  W. 
Perkins,  D.D.,  of  Lynn,  Mass. 

2.50.     Discussion. 

3.30.     Adjournment. 

Special  arrangements  made  for  afternoon  sight-seeing,  automo- 
bile rides  about  Philadelphia  and  its  environs,  and  personally 
conducted  tours  about  the  city. 


WEDNESDAY  EVENING,  APRIL  28 

Social  Reception.  In  the  Clover  Room  of  the  Hotel  Bellevue- 
Stratford.  Admission  by  membership  badge.  Brief  addresses  by 
various  speakers. 


THE  ESSENTIAL  THING  IN  RELIGION. 

Inward  sanctity,  pure  love,  disinterested  attachment  to  God  and 
man,  obedience  of  heart  and  life,  sincere  excellence  of  character, 
this  is  the  one  thing  needful,  this  is  the  essential  thing  in  religion; 
and  all  things  else  —  ministers,  churches,  ordinances,  places  of  wor- 
ship—  are  all  but  means,  helps,  secondary  influences,  and  utterly 
worthless  when  separated  from  this.  To  imagine  that  God  regards 
anything  but  this,  that  he  looks  at  anything  but  the  heart,  is  to  dis- 
honor him,  to  express  a  mournful  insensibility  to  his  pure  character. 
Goodness,  purity,  virtue,  this  is  the  only  distinction  in  God's  sight. 
This  is  intrinsically,  essentially,  everlastingly,  and  by  its  own  nature 
lovely,  beautiful,  glorious,  divine.  It  owes  nothing  to  time,  to  circum- 
stance, to  outward  confessions.  It  shines  by  its  own  light.  It  is 
God  himself  dwelling  in  the  human  soul. —  William  E.  Channing. 


30 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN'S  RELIGION. 

"  The  conversation  turned  upon  religious  subjects,  and  Mr.  Lincoln 
made  this  impressive  remark:  'I  have  never  united  myself  to  any 
church,  because  I  have  found  difficulty  in  giving  my  assent,  with- 
out mental  reservation,  to  the  long  complicated  statements  of  Christian 
doctrine  which  characterize  their  Articles  of  Belief  and  Confessions 
of  Faith.  When  any  church  will  inscribe  over  its  altar,  as  its  sole 
qualification  for  membership,  the  Saviour's  condensed  statement  of 
the  substance  of  both  Law  and  Gospel,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
mind,  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  that  church  will  I  join  with  all 
my  heart  and  all  my  soul.'  " — From  "Six  Months  in  the  White  House." 

CHARLES  DARWIN. 

Acute  as  were  his  reasoning  powers,  vast  as  was  his  knowledge, 
marvellous  as  was  his  tenacious  industry  under  physical  difficulties 
which  would  have  converted  nine  men  out  of  ten  into  aimless  in- 
valids, it  was  not  these  qualities,  great  as  they  were,  which  impressed 
those  who  were  admitted  to  his  intimacy  with  involuntary  vener- 
ation, but  a  certain  and  almost  passionate  honesty  by  which  all  his 
thoughts  and  actions  were  irradiated  as  by  a  central  fire. —  Thomas 
Huxley. 

THE  OLD-NEW  BIBLE. 

In  the  light  of  modern  science,  the  sacred  text  has  been  trans- 
formed. Out  of  the  old  chaos  has  come  order.  Out  of  the  hope- 
lessly conflicting  statements  in  religion  and  morals  has  come  the  idea 
of  a  sacred  literature  which  mirrors  the  most  striking  evolution  of 
morals  and  religion  in  the  history  of  our  race.  Of  all  the  sacred 
writings  of  the  world,  our  own  is  the  most  beautiful  and  the  most 
precious.  It  exhibits  to  us  the  most  complete  religious  development 
to  which  humanity  has  attained,  and  holds  before  us  the  loftiest  ideals 
our  race  has  known. —  Andrew  D-  White. 

THE  CHURCH. 

There  never  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  the  world  when  the 
Church  was  a  greater  necessity  than  at  present,  because  human  society 
was  never  in  more  need  of  the  moral  quality  which  it  contributes  to 
man's  life.  Not  more  legislative  statutes,  but  more  of  the  spiritual 
convictions  of  a  rational  piety;  not  more  luxuries,  but  more  of  the 
ethical  motives  that  flow  from  the  spiritual  nurture  of  the  Church, — 
.  .  .  this  is  the  one  supreme  preparation  for  life  to-day. —  Joseph 
H.   Crooker. 

An  enthusiasm  for  humanity  is  needed  to  transform  the  Church, 
and,  thus  transformed,  the  Church  would  soon  transform  the  world. 
—  Josiah  Strong. 


31 


THURSDAY  MORNING,  APRIL  29,  9.30  a.  m. 

THIRD    SESSION    OF   THE   CONGRESS 

Topic,  "  Religion  and  Modern  Life." 

9.30.  Devotional  Service.  Rev.  Hugo  Eisenlohr,  Cincinnati, 
Ohio. 

9.40.  Address:  topic,  "The  Religion  of  Democracy,  as  exem- 
plified by  the  Career  of  Abraham  Lincoln  (1809-1909)."  Rev.. 
Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  Minister  Abraham  Lincoln  Centre,  Chi- 
cago, 111. 

10.20.  Address:  topic,  "  Evolution  and  Religion.  Religion's 
Debt  to  Charles  Darwin  ( 1809-1909)."  Rev.  Chas.  E.  St.  John, 
minister  First  Unitarian  Church  of  Philadelphia. 

11.00.     Discussion. 

11.30.  Address:  "  The  Bible  in  Modern  Life."  Rabbi  David 
Philipson,  President  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis, 
Cincinnati,    Ohio. 

12.00.     Discussion. 

12.30.     Adjournment. 


THURSDAY  AFTERNOON,  APRIL  29,  2  p.  m. 
third  SESSION   (continued) 

2.00.  Address:  "The  Church  in  Modern  Life."  Rev. 
Frank  O.  Hall,  D.D.,  Minister  Church  of  the  Divine  Paternity, 
New  York,  N.  Y. 

2.35.     Discussion. 

3.10.  Address:  "Jesus  Christ  in  Modern  Life."  Prof. 
George  B.  Foster,  Ph.D.,  University  of  Chicago. 

3.45.  Address:  "The  Relation  of  Liberal  Religion  to  For- 
eign  Missions."     Albert   Bowen,   of   Philadelphia. 

Discussion.  Led  by  Rev.  Clay  MacCauley,  formerly  of  Tokio, 
Japan. 


3a 


HONEST  POLITICS. 

"The  Republic,  the  noblest  form  of  government,  is  also  the  most 
difficult  of  governments  to  maintain.  Its  integrity  and  perpetuity 
depend,  as  in  no  other  form  of  polity,  on  the  righteousness,  loyalty, 
and  incessant  watchfulness  of  its  citizens,  both  in  their  individual 
and  collective  capacity.  For  either  liberty  must  cast  out  corruption, 
or  corruption  will  destroy  liberty." 

SOCIAL  BETTERMENT. 

It  is  our  duty  to  be  a  leaven  of  hope  and  help  in  the  world.  It 
is  our  duty  to  serve  our  generation,  to  purify  the  blood  of  the 
social  organism,  to  arch  the  world  of  human  life  with  a  fairer  sky, 
to  become  ourselves  a  social  Providence,  to  uncover  in  our  own  souls, 
before  the  eyes  and  hearts  of  men,  the  face  and  life  of  God — 
William  Thurston  Brown. 

We  are  trying  to  live  on  with  a  social  organization  of  which  the 
day  is  over.  Certainly  equality  will  never  of  itself  give  us  a  per- 
fect civilization.  But  with  such  inequality  as  ours  a  perfect  civi- 
ization  is  impossible.  Our  inequality  materializes  our  upper  class,  vul- 
garizes our  middle,  brutalizes  our  lower.  Political  freedom  may  very 
well  be  established  by  aristocratic  founders,  social  freedom,  equality, 
that  is  rather  the  field  of  the  conquests  of  democracy. —  Matthew 
Arnold. 

I  confess  I  am  not  at  all  charmed  with  the  ideal  of  life  held  out 
by  those  who  think  that  the  normal  state  of  human  beings  is  that 
of  struggling  to  get  on ;  that  the  trampling,  crushing,  elbowing,  and 
treading  on  each  other's  heels,  which  form  the  existing  type  of  human 
life,  are  the  most  desirable  lot  of  humankind,  or  anything  but  the 
disagreeable  symptoms  of  one  of  the  phases  of  industrial  progress. — 
John  Stuart  Mill. 

THE  INDUSTRIAL  PROBLEM. 

There  is  no  fundamental  antagonism  between  labor  and  capital. 
Capital  is,  in  large  measure,  the  product  of  labor,  and  there  can  be, 
or  at  least  there  should  be,  no  conflict  between  him  who  creates  and 
the  thing  he  creates.  In  the  final  analysis  the  problem  is  in  the 
distribution  of  wealth;  there  always  has  been,  and  possibly  there  al- 
ways will  be,  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  equitable  distribution 
of  wealth.  But  I  am  optimistic  enough  to  believe  that,  as  time  goes 
on,  the  men  of  both  labor  and  capital  will,  to  a  greater  and  greater 
extent,  adjust  their  relations  amicably  and  honorably,  and  without 
recourse  to  the  strike  or  lockout. —  John  Mitchell. 


33 

THURSDAY  EVENING,  APRIL  29,  8  O'CLOCK 

FOURTH    SESSION"    OF   THE    CONGRESS 

Topic,  "  Religion  and  the  Social  Question." 

8.00.     Devotional   Service. 

8.10.  Address:  "Religion  and  Politics,"  Justice  F.  J. 
Swayze,   Supreme  Court  of  New  Jersey. 

8.40.  Address:  "Religion  and  Social  Service."  Alexander 
Johnson,  General  Secretary  National  Conference  of  Charities  and 
Correction,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

9.10.  Address:  "Religion  and  Modern  Industrialism." 
John  Mitchell,  late  President  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 


Whatever  demoralizes  the  man  and  the  citizen,  whatever  violates 
the  dictates  of  conscience  or  lowers  the  standard  of  rectitude  in  his 
soul,  inflicts  a  more  dangerous  wound  upon  the  Constitution,  and 
shakes  the  fabric  of  our  nationality  more  than  any  open  treason.  The 
basis  of  all  public  law  is  private  virtue.  The  anchorage  of  our  na- 
tional Union  is  in  personal  rectitude  and  reverence.  If  it  holds  by 
anything  more  shallow  than  this  it  is  unsafe,  and  they  who  flout 
individual  conscience  and  the  moral  law  in  the  soul  do  violence  to 
the  strongest  guarantees  of  all  order  and  all  law. —  Rev.  F.  H.  Chapin. 

THE  SO-CALLED  PHARISAISM  OF  REFORM. 

No  American,  it  seems  to  me,  is  so  unworthy  the  name  as  he  who 
attempts  to  extenuate  or  defend  any  national  abuse,  who  denies  or 
tries  to  hide  it,  or  who  derides  as  pessimists  and  Pharisees  those  who 
indignantly  disown  it  and  raise  the  cry  of  reform.  If  a  man  proposes 
the  redress  of  any  public  wrong,  he  is  asked  severely  whether  he 
considers  himself  so  much  wiser  and  better  than  other  men  that  he 
must  disturb  the  existing  order  and  pose  as  a  saint.  If  he  denounces 
an  evil,  he  is  exhorted  to  beware  of  spiritual  pride.  If  he  points  out 
a  dangerous  public  tendency  or  censures  the  action  of  a  party,  he  is 
advised  to  cultivate  good-humor,  to  look  on  the  bright  side,  to  remem- 
ber that  the  world  is  a  very  good  world,  at  least  the  best  going,  and 
very  much  better  than  it  was  a  hundred  years  ago.  It  is  an  ill-sign 
when  public  men  find  in  exposure  and  denunciation  of  public  abuses 
evidence  of  the  Pharisaic  disposition  and  a  tendency  in  the  critic  to 
think  himself  holier  than  other  men.  To  the  cant  about  the  Phar- 
isaism of  reform  there  is  one  short  and  final  answer.  The  man  who 
tells  the  truth  is  a  holier  man  than  the  liar.  The  man  who  does  not 
steal  is  a  better  man  than  the  thief. —  George  William  Curtis. 


34 
PEACE  ON  EARTH. 

From  the  beginning  Friends  have  been  advocates  of  peace.  A 
Quaker  civilization  would  abolish  armies  and  navies,  do  away  with 
all  war  and  preparations  for  war.  It  would  eliminate  altogether  the 
principal  of  destructive  force  from  governmental  control. —  A.  M. 
Powell. 

My  first  wish  is  to  see  this  plague  to  mankind  banished  from  the 
earth. —  George  Washington. 

War  is  the  most  ferocious  and  futile  of  human  follies. —  John  Hay. 

A  SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE. 

Our  days  witness  a  recoil  from  the  extreme  inwardness  of  our 
forefathers'  religion.  Human  affections  warm  us  more.  Human  du- 
ties are  nobler  in  our  view.  Social  interests  are  of  deeper  moment, 
and  the  whole  scene  of  man's  visible  life,  no  longer  the  mere  vesti- 
bule of  an  invisible  futurity,  has  a  worth  and  dignity  of  its  own, 
which  philanthropy  delights  to  honor,  and  only  fanaticism  can  despise. 
—  James  Martineau. 

TRUE  MARRIAGE. 

In  the  marriage  union  the  independence  of  the  husband  and  wife 
should  be  equal,  their  dependence  mutual,  and  their  obligations  recipro- 
cal.—  Lucretia  Mott. 

A  NORMAL  CHILDHOOD. 

The  new  view  of  the  child, —  normal  birth,  physical  protection, 
joyous  infancy,  useful  education,  and  an  ever  fuller  inheritance  of 
the  accumulated  riches  of  civilization. —  Edivard  T.  Devine. 

A  REFORMER'S  VISION. 

Am  I  sure  of  the  success  of  the  temperance  movement?  As  sure 
as  I  am  that  the  sun  will  rise  to-morrow.  Let  me  only  feel  that 
the  everlasting  right  of  God  is  underneath  my  feet,  and  sometime, 
somewhere,  I  win.  I  have  lived  a  good  many  years  in  the  world.  I 
have  gone  through  many  reforms.  I  have  at  last  arrived  at  the  point 
where  my  confidence  in  the  certain  victory  of  all  moral  effort,  in  the 
immortality  and  triumph  of  what  is  right,  is  fixed,  and  never  will 
die.  Victory  may  be  postponed,  but  I  am  confident  that  it  will  come. 
The  time  will  be  when,  if  we  continue  this  work  against  the  liquor 
traffic,  the  end  will  come.  You  and  I  may  not  live  to  see  it,  but  our 
children  and  our  children's  children  will  be  the  gainers,  and  we  on 
the  other  side  shall  take  our  part  in  the  great  rejoicing,  when  the  cry 
of  jubilee  shall  rise,  "'Hallelujah,  for  the  Lord  God  Omnipotent  reign- 
eth!" — Mary  A.  Livermore. 


35 


FRIDAY  MORNING,  APRIL  30,  930  a.  m. 

FIFTH    SESSION    OF    THE    CONGRESS 

Topic,  "  Religious  and  Social  Reform." 

9.30.     Devotional  Service. 

9.40.  Address:  "The  Duty  of  Religious  Liberals  towards 
the  Peace  Movement."  Dr.  William  I.  Hull,  Swarthmore  Col- 
lege, Pennsylvania. 

10.10.  Discussion.  Led  by  Miss  Anna  B.  Eckstein,  of  Bos- 
ton. 

10.40.  Address:  "  Religion  and  the  Social  Conscience." 
Prof.  Francis  Greenwood  Peabody,  D.D.,  of  Harvard  Univer- 
sity. 

II. 1 5.     Discussion.     Led  by  W.  J.  Ogden,  Baltimore. 
11.40.     Address:  "The  Duty  of  Religious  Liberals  with  Respect 
to  Marriage  and  Divorce."     Mrs.  Anna  Garlin  Spencer,  Director 
Summer  School  of  Ethics,  New  York. 

12.10.     Discussion. 

12.30.     Adjournment. 


FRIDAY  AFTERNOON,  APRIL  30,  2  p.  m. 
FIFTH   session    (continued) 

2.  Address:  "The  Duty  of  Religious  Liberals  with  Respect 
to  the  Child."  Mrs.  Frederick  Nathan,  President  Consumers' 
League,  New  York. 

2.30.     Discussion. 

3.00.  Address:  "The  Duty  of  Religious  Liberals  toward  the 
Temperance  Reform."     Wilson  S.  Doan,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

3.30.  Discussion.  Led  by  Rev.  Pedro  Ilgen,  D.D.,  Pastor 
German  Evangelical  Church  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 


36 


THE  FELLOWSHIP  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 

We  have  grown  up  under  different  influences.  We  bear  different 
names.  .  .  .  Diversities  of  opinion  may  incline  us  to  worship'  under 
different  roofs,  or  diversities  of  tastes  or  habit  to  worship  with  dif- 
ferent forms.  But  ...  we  may  still  honor  and  love  and  rejoice  in 
one  another's  spiritual  life  and  progress  as  truly  as  if  we  were  cast 
into  one  and  the  same  unyielding  form.  ...  In  many  great 
truths,  in  those  which  are  most  quickening,  purifying,  and  consol- 
ing, we  all,  I  hope,  agree.  There  is  a  common  ground  of  practice 
aloof  from  all  controversy,  on  which  we  may  all  meet.  We  may 
all  unite  hearts  and  hands  in  doing  good,  in  fulfilling  God's  pur- 
poses of  love  towards  our  race,  in  toiling  and  suffering  for  the  cause 
of  humanity,  in  spreading  intelligence,  freedom,  and  virtue,  in  mak- 
ing God  known  for  the  reverence,  love  and  imitation  of  his  creatures, 
in  resisting  the  abuses  and  corruptions  of  past  ages,  in  exploring  and 
drying  up  the  sources  of  poverty,  in  rescuing  the  fallen  from  intem- 
perance, in  succoring  the  orphan  and  widow,  in  enlightening  and  ele- 
vating the  depressed  portions  of  the  community,  in  breaking  the  yoke 
of  the  oppressed  and  enslaved,  in  exposing  and  withstanding  the  spirit 
and  horrors  of  war,  in  sending  God's  word  to  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
in  redeeming  the  world  from  sin  and  woe.  .  .  .  May  this  universal 
charity  descend  on  us,  and  possess  our  hearts ;  may  our  narrowness, 
exclusiveness,  and  bigotry  melt  away! — William  Ellery  Channing. 

PEACE  AND  LOVE. 

With  the  sweet  word  of  peace 

We  bid  our  brethren  go, — 
Peace,  as  a  river  to  increase 

And  ceaseless  flow. 
With  the  calm  word  of  prayer 

We  earnestly  commend 
Each  other  to  thy  watchful  care. 

Eternal  Friend ! 

I 
With  the  dear  word  of  love 

We  give  our  friends  farewell ; 
Our  love  below  and  Thine  above 

With  them  shall  dwell. 
With  the  strong  word  of  faith 

We  stay  ourselves  on  Thee, 
That  Thou,  O  Lord,  in  life  and  death 

Our  help  shalt  be. 


3.7 


FRIDAY  EVENING,  APRIL  30 

SIXTH  AND  CLOSING  SESSON  OF  THE  CONGRESS 

Topic,  "The  Fellowship  of  the  Spirit." 

7.45,     Devotional  Service. 

8.00.  Address:  "  Liberty  and  Union  in  Religion."  Rev. 
Charles  G.  Ames,  D.D.,  Minister  Church  of  the  Disciples,  Bos- 
ton, Mass. 

8.15.  Seven-minute  addresses  by  representative  members  of 
the  following  and  other  religious  bodies : 

Baptist.     Rev.  Dr.  George  H.  Ferris,  of  Philadelphia. 

Congregationalist.     Rev.  C.  S.  Patton,  of  Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

Christian.     Rev.  Wm.  H.  Hainer,  Irvington,  N.  J. 

Disciple.     Rev.   L.  G  Batman,   Philadelphia. 

Episcopalian.     Rev.  Dr.  Henry  Mottet,  of  New  York. 

Ethical  Culture  Society.     Mr.  Percival  Chubb,  of  New  York. 

Friend.     Prof.  Dr.  Jesse  H.  Holmes,  of  Philadelphia. 

German  Evangelical.     Rev.  Carl  A.  Voss,  of  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

Jewish.     Rabbi   Dr.  Joseph  Krauskopf,   of  Philadelphia. 

Lutheran.     Rev.  Luther  DeYeo,  Germantown,  Pa. 

Schwenkfelderian.     Rev.  H.  Heebner,  of  Philadelphia. 

Universalist.     Rev.  J.  Clarence  Lee,  D.D.,  of  Philadelphia. 

Unitarian.     Rev.  W.  H.  Fish,  of  Meadville,  Penn. 

Closing  remarks  by  the  President  of  the  Congress,  Henry  W. 
Wilbur. 

Glory,  honor,  and  peace  to  every  man  that  worketh  good! — Ro- 
mans ii,  10. 


38 


TESTIMONIES  ADOPTED  BY  THE  CONGRESS 

A    STATEMENT   FOR   THE    YEAR    1909 

With  the  world  hungering  for  righteousness,  and  thirsting  for 
the  love  and  sympathy  which  belongs  to  brotherliness,  the  first 
Congress  of  the  National  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals  in 
session  in  Philadelphia  April  30,  1909,  expresses  its  firm  con- 
viction that  the  time  has  come  for  definite  and  united  efforts  to 
benefit  the  world,  with  such  purpose  overshadowing  differences 
of  creed  or  diversity  of  belief. 

To  this  end  we  declare  it  our  purpose  by  the  presentation  of 
ideals,  by  the  appeal  to  public  sentiment,  by  efforts  to  secure  the 
enactment  of  law,  where  law  may  help,  and  by  the  employment 
of  all  possible  orderly  and  constructive  efforts  to  make  it  easier 
for  men  to  do  right,  and  more  and  more  possible  for  our  human- 
ity to  reach  its  divinely  ordered  estate. 

With  an  acknowledgment  of  the  intellectual,  moral  and  spir- 
itual uplift  which  has  come  to  us  during  these  three  days  of  com- 
munion ;  with  an  added  appreciation  of  the  good  thing  it  is  for 
brethren  to  dwell  together  in  unity;  we  hereby  express  our  de- 
sire for  a  second  Congress  at  such  time  and  place  as  the  executive 
committee,  in  consultation  with  the  members  of  the  Federation, 
may  determine. 

Whereas,  The  first  Congress  of  the  National  Federation  of 
Religious  Liberals  is  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  the  City  of  Broth- 
erly Love,  the  City  of  William  Penn's  Holy  Experiment,  at  a. 
time  in  the  world's  history  when  there  is  a  great  and  fruitful 
promise  that  William  Penn's  ideal  of  international  arbitration 
by  means  of  a  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice  can  be  speedily  realized 
by  the  nations: 

Be  it  resolved,  That  the  said  Congress  urge  upon  our  American 
Government  its  opportunity  of  fulfilling  the  aspiration  of  gen- 
erations of   the   best   American   citizens   by  enacting  the   role  of 


'      ^^     OF    THE  '^ 

UMIVEP.SITY 


39 

Peace  Maker  among  the  nations,  by  pushing  forward  in  every 
pacific  way  the  positive  programme  for  the  realization  of  univer- 
sal peace  adopted  by  the  two  Hague  Conferences,  and  especially 
by  the  promotion  of  the  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice. 

And  whereas.  Both  reason  and  experience  prove  beyond  the 
shadow  of  a  reasonable  doubt  that  increasing  armaments  are  in- 
evitably and  irresistibly  opposed  to  increasing  arbitration. 

Be  it  further  resolved  by  the  said  Congress,  That  our  American 
Government  be  urgently  requested  to  enter  upon  negotiations  with 
the  governments  of  the  other  nations  to  bring  about  an  interna- 
tional agreement  for  the  limitation  of  armaments,  and  thus  to 
lift  from  the  people's  backs  an  oppressive,  increasing  and  iniqui- 
tous burden,  as  well  as  to  remove  the  chief  obstacle  from  the  path 
of  international  arbitration. 

We,  members  of  many  different  American  denominations, 
assembled  in  the  National  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals  at 
Philadelphia,  desire  to  express  our  deep  concern  over  the  present 
conditions  in  Turkey  and  its  dependencies. 

Assuming  that  the  terrible  reports  recently  received  of  the  mas- 
sacre of  many  thousands  of  Christians  by  fanatical  and  mis- 
guided Moslems  are  correct,  we  can  find  no  words  to  express  the 
intensity  of  our  horror  and  indignation  at  such  crimes  against 
humanity. 

In  all  tenderness  we  sympathize  with  the  endangered  Christian 
missionaries.  At  the  same  time  we  recognize  that  there  are  high- 
minded  Moslems,  and  we  would  express  our  hearty  interest  in 
all  their  efforts  for  the  reformation  of  their  government  and  the 
improvement  of  their  people. 

Therefore,  be  it  resolved,  That  we  respectfully  urge  the  Presi- 
dent and  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  do  all  that  may  be 
possible  towards  rebuking  these  atrocious  crimes,  and  towards 
preventing   their   repetition. 

Resolved,  That  this  Federation  expresses  its  hearty  sympathy 
with  all  persons  in  all  walks  of  life  who  are  engaged  in  efforts  for 
human  betterment. 

Resolved,  That  especially  we  pledge  our  support  to  those  who 


40 

seek  the  abolition  of  the  child-labor  evil,  the  overthrow  of  the 
"  sweating  system,"  the  establishment  of  the  living  wage  as  the 
minimum  in  any  industry,  and  the  protection  of  the  workers  from 
dangerous  machinery  and  unsanitary  conditions  of  employment. 

Whereas,  The  traditions  of  this  house,  embodied  in  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Society  of  Friends  and  nobly  and  sweetly  set  forth 
by  Lucretia  Mott  and  other  true  men  and  women,  are  wholly  for 
equality  of  opportunity  and  service  for  men  and  women. 

And  Whereas,  Freedom  of  thought  creates  and  should  go  hand 
in  hand  with  freedom  of  service. 

Resolved,  That  this  body  places  itself  on  record  as  believing  in 
political  equality  for  men  and  women ;  that  women  and  men 
should  receive  equal  protection  from  and  recognize  an  equal  duty 
to  the  State ;  and  that  to  this  end  the  ballot  should  be  granted  to 
women  on  equal  terms  with  men. 

The  Congress  refers  to  the  executive  committee,  with  the  prom- 
ise of  our  support  and  approval,  the  devising  and  working  out  of 
plans  for  the  employment  and  support  of  a  physician  who  shall 
render  skilled  public  service  in  some  foreign  land,  if  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  committee  plans  for  his  labor  seem  right,  wise  and 
practical ;  the  only  requirement  of  such  missionary  being  ability 
and  a  willingness  to  do  good. 

Acknowledgments.  The  thanks  of  the  National  Federation 
of  Religious  Liberals  are  returned  to  the  monthly  meeting  of  the 
Society  of  Friends  in  Philadelphia  for  the  use  of  their  Meeting 
House  during  the  sessions  of  this  Congress,  and  for  their  unre- 
mitting and  generous  activity  for  the  success  of  our  gathering,  and 
the  comfort  and  welfare  of  the  sf>eakers  and  members  of  the 
Federation. 

We  would  acknowledge  especially  the  large-hearted  hospitality 
of  the  member  of  the  Society  of  Friends  to  whom  we  are  indebted 
for  the  delightful  reception  at  the  Hotel  Bellevue-Stratford,  on 
Wednesday  evening  last. 

Our  gratitude  is  due  also  to  the  American  Unitarian  Association 
for  its  large  contribution  towards  the  preliminary  expenses  of  the 


41 

organization,  as  well  as  for  the  services  of  its  international  and 
interdenominational  Secretary,  Rev.  Charles  W.  Wendte,  in  this 
connection. 

The  Congress  furthermore  returns  its  thanks  to  the  officers  and 
committees  who  have  labored  so  faithfully  and  effectively  for  the 
success  of  these  meetings,  especially  to  Henry  W.  Wilbur,  its  Presi- 
dent, and  to  its  Secretary  and  Treasurer;  to  the  denominational 
and  other  journals  which  have  heralded  and  encouraged  its  for- 
mation; to  the  newspaper  press  which  has  reported  its  proceedings; 
and  to  all  friends  of  our  Congress  who  have  contributed  by  gen- 
erous gifts  and  efficient  service  to  insure  the  realization  of  this 
endeavor  to  unite  the  religious  liberals  of  the  United  States  in 
testimony  and  service  for  their  common  principles  and  ideals. 

It  was  voted  that  the  present  Executive  Committee  of  twenty- 
five  be  continued ;  that  Rev.  Charles  W.  Wendte  of  Boston  act  as 
Secretary  to  the  Federation  and  Henry  Justice  of  Philadelphia  as 
Treasurer.  Furthermore,  that  Henry  W.  Wilbur  continue  to 
serve  as  President  until  the  next  Congress,  when  a  local  chair- 
man is  to  be  chosen  by  the  organizations  which  have  invited  the 
Federation  to  their  city. 

The  place  of  the  next  meeting  was  referred  to  the  Executive 
Committee  with  power  to  act. 

It  was  voted  that  the  Proceedings  of  this  First  Congress  of 
Religious  Liberals  be  published  in  pamphlet  form  for  wider  dis- 
tribution, and  that  a  copy  be  sent  to  every  member  of  the  Federa- 
tion. 


42 


First  Topic  of  the  Congress, 

"RELIGIOUS  TOLERANCE  AND  GOOD 
CITIZENSHIP" 

WELCOME   BY  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  CONGRESS,   HENRY  W.  WIL- 
BUR, OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS,  PHILADELPHIA: 

Assembling  in  this  plain  place  of  worship,  you  will  miss  the  blare 
of  the  trumpets  and  the  playing  of  the  harpers,  and  many  other 
spectacular  features  which  are  to  be  found  elsewhere.  We  have 
none  of  these  things,  but  such  as  we  have,  give  we  unto  you. 
We  wish  it  understood,  however,  that  the  welcome  is  none  the 
less  cordial  because  of  the  lack  of  outward  demonstration.  W^e 
trust  that  you  will  feel  at  home  with  us,  and  whatever  we  can 
do  for  your  comfort  and  happiness  we  will  cheerfully  perform. 

Near  where  the  chairman  now  stands  in  this  meeting  house, 
one  of  the  gentlest  spirits  and  broadest  thinkers  of  our  religious 
body  for  twenty  years  delivered  her  testimony  to  the  truth.  On 
what  we  call  the  men's  side  of  the  gallery  was  the  associate  of 
this  gifted  woman.  In  their  day  it  would  have  delighted  the 
hearts  of  Lucretia  Mott  and  George  Truman  to  see  this  com- 
pany of  people,  representing  different  communions,  gathered  to 
consider  the  vital  interests  of  the  truth  under  the  roof-tree  of 
the  Religious  Society  in  which  both  these  ministers  lived  and 
labored.  In  their  name,  in  the  name  of  all  the  spirits  of  just 
men  and  women  made  perfect  who  have  struggled  and  labored 
and  passed  on,  and  in  the  name  of  the  broader  brotherhood  of 
our  time,  I  bid  you  welcome  to  this  house,  which  this  year  cele- 
brates the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  its  occupation  as  a  place  of 
worship. 

INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS,     REV.     CHARLES    W.    WENDTE,     BOSTON, 
SECRETARY  OF  THE   CONGRESS: 

On  the  water-gate  of  the  great  world's  fair  in  Chicago  was 
graven  this  sentence:  "Toleration  in  Religion  the  best  fruit  of  the 
nineteenth  centurj^."     This  sentiment,  which  is  said  to  have  been 


43 

framed  by  President  Eliot  of  Harvard  University,  admirably 
embodies  the  lesson  of  history  and  the  spirit  of  our  meeting  this 
evening.  Of  all  the  evils  which  have  arisen  from  man's  igno- 
rance and  unreasoning  hatred,  the  worst  are  those  which  have 
resulted  from  religious  bigotry  and  intolerance.  From  the  latter 
have  sprung  the  terrible  persecutions  which  in  all  ages  and  sys- 
tems of  faith  have  brought  unspeakable  suffering  and  misery  upon 
the  human  race,  arrested  the  free  development  of  truth,  and  ren- 
dered nugatory  the  beneficent  influence  of  religion  itself. 

What  a  terrible  misconception  was  this  of  the  spirit  of  true 
religion,  and  of  the  teachings  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  who 
said :  "  By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  that 
ye  have  love  one  toward  another." 

Nothing  so  truly  measures  the  progress  of  mankind  as  the  in- 
creasing tolerance  manifested  among  modern  and  civilized  na- 
tions, and  which  is  so  characteristic  of  our  own  time  and  country. 
In  America  to-day  the  reign  of  fire  and  sword  in  religion  is 
over;  the  era  of  reason  and  conscience,  of  sympathetic  justice 
and  good  will  has  begun.  Catholics  and  Protestants,  Calvinists 
and  Socinians,  Christians  and  Jews,  live  together  in  comparative 
harmony,  and  mutually  respect,  even  if  they  do  not  always  share, 
each  others  opinions.  The  last  stronghold  of  intolerance,  the 
prejudice  of  race,  is  undermined  and  gradually  disappearing. 
The  creeds  of  the  churches  may  not  have  changed  to  any  great 
extent;  it  is  the  spirit  of  the  age  which  has  changed.  Men 
have  come,  through  sad  experiences,  to  learn  the  folly  and  futility 
of  persecution,  the  waste  and  wickedness  of  war  for  opinion's 
sake.  They  have  come  to  recognize  that  goodness  is  of  no  sect, 
that  character  is  above  creed,  life  more  important  than  thought. 
Love,  not  intolerant  hatred,  is  the  master-passion  of  our  age, 
the  common  brotherhood  of  man  the  ideal  of  its  religion. 

With  the  growth  of  republican  institutions  there  has  come 
into  birth  a  new  sentiment  of  personal  independence.  Finally, 
science  has  entered  the  field  as  a  great  emancipator,  enlarging 
and  broadening  men's  minds  and  teaching  the  relativity  of  all 
truth.  In  the  dawning  of  this  twentieth  century,  liberty  of 
thought  and  speech,  tolerance  to  others'  opinions,  breadth  and 
liberality  of  mind,  are  distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  best 
and  most  influential  elements  of  American  society. 


44 

Not  that  displa3S  of  intolerance  have  entirely  ceased  among 
us.  The  instances  of  racial  antipathy  and  religious  prejudice 
are  too  numerous  and  too  recent  to  enable  us  to  make  that  asser- 
tion. But  we  may  claim  that  they  are  greatly  modified  in  in- 
tensity, and  are  comparatively  harmless.  They  are  in  no  in- 
stance representative  of  our  American  people,  as  a  whole.  When 
they  are  exhibited,  the  leading  voices  among  us  are  raised 
in  condemnation,  and  the  nation  promptly  disowns  and  sup- 
presses them.  For  we  live  in  a  tolerant  age;  we  are  a  peo- 
ple which  has  a  passion  for  freedom  of  thought  and  speech, 
for  justice  and  equal  rights.  It  is  to  newly  vindicate  these 
ideals  of  American  society,  to  protest  against  any  attempts 
to  revive  among  us  the  racial  and  religious  bigotr\^  which  dis- 
figured other  and  earlier  epochs  of  human  history,  that  this  con- 
gress has  been  called.  This  opening  meeting,  especially,  is  to 
be  devoted  to  the  affirmation  that  mutual  tolerance  and  good- 
will between  all  classes,  races  and  churches  of  the  republic  is 
a  fundamental  condition  of  our  religious  and  civil  welfare.  The 
eminent  speakers  who  are  to  address  you  represent  creeds  and 
churches  widely  divergent  in  their  antecedents  and  opinions. 
From  them  j^ou  will  learn  anew  that  differences  of  religious 
belief  form  no  necessary  barrier  to  mutual  consideration  and 
good-will,  to  a  common  love  of  country,  and  the  faithful  and 
equal  performance  of  the  duties  of  good  citizenship. 

THE  JEW  AND  GOOD  CITIZENSHIP 

RABBI   DAVID    PHILIPSOX,   D.D.,    OF    CIXCIXNATI 

In  length  of  residence  and  active  participation  in  every  strug- 
gle for  the  welfare  of  the  country,  the  story  of  the  Jew  in  America 
equals  in  interest  that  of  any  other  religious  denomination.  The 
Jew  in  the  United  States  is  American  to  the  core,  and  has  en- 
tered with  his  fellow-citizens  of  every  faith  and  opinion,  who 
understand  the  principles  upon  which  our  American  institutions 
rest,  into  the  true  spirit  of  this  government,  which  (in  the  words 
written  by  George  Washington,  in  answer  to  a  congratulatory 
address  directed  to  him  by  the  Jewish  congregation  of  Newport, 
R.  I.),   "gives  to  bigotry  no  sanction,  to  persecution  no  assist- 


45 

ance,  and  requires  only  that  those  who  live  under  its  protection 
shall  demean  themselves  as  g:ood  citizens  in  piving  it  on  all  occa- 
sions their  effectual  support." 

The  discovery  of  America.  Jews  were  instrumental  in  mak- 
ing the  voyage  of  Columbus  possible.  Negotiations  between  the 
navigator  and  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  the  King  and  Queen  of 
Spain,  had  been  suspended  when  the  Jewish  favorite  of  Ferdi- 
nand, Luis  de  Santangel,  chancellor  of  the  royal  household  of 
Aragon,  induced  them  to  lend  favorable  consideration  once  again 
to  the  appeal  of  Columbus.  He  himself  advanced  17,000  ducats 
out  of  his  own  fortune,  for  which  he  would  not  accept  interest, 
toward  fitting  out  Columbus'  first  expedition.  The  discovery 
of  this  fact  has  destroyed  the  century-old  legend  that  Queen 
Isabella  pawned  her  jewels  to  secure  the  money  for  the  equip- 
ment of  the  expedition  of  Columbus,  and  led  the  late  Prof. 
Herbert  B.  Adams,  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  to  coin 
the  epigram,  "  Not  jewels,  but  Jews,  were  the  real  financial  basis 
for  the  first  expedition  of  Columbus."  It  was  undoubtedly  be- 
cause of  the  assistance  given  him  by  Santangel  that  Columbus 
wrote  him  the  first  detailed  account  of  his  voyage.  This  ^^'as 
in  the  form  of  a  letter  written  by  Columbus  on  February  15, 
1493,  from  the  Azores,  where  the  navigator  stopped  on  his  home- 
ward voyage. 

The  first  European  who  set  foot  on  American  soil  was  a 
Jew  by  birth,  Luis  de  Torres,  the  interpreter  of  the  expedition 
of  Columbus.  He  settled  in  Cuba  and  lived  there  the  remainder 
of  his  life.  He  was  the  first  European  to  discover  the  use  of 
tobacco. 

Dr.  M.  Kayserling,  who  pointed  out  these  facts  in  his  book, 
"  Christopher  Columbus  and  the  Participation  of  the  Jews  in  the 
Spanish  and  Portuguese  Discoveries,"  mentions  a  number  of 
other  persons  of  Jewish  descent  among  those  who  sailed  with 
Columbus  on  his  epoch-making  voyage,  viz. :  Alonzo  de  la  Calle, 
Rodrigo  Sanchez,  and  Maestre  Bernal,  the  ship's  surgeon. 

Early  Jewish  settlers.  The  first  Jewish  arrivals  in  the 
New  World  settled  in  South  America,  and  the  islands  of  the  south- 
ern sea.  But  we  are  concerned  here  with  the  story  of  the  Jews 
in  the  United  States,  and  therefore  must  dismiss  with  this  mere 


46 

mention  all   reference  to   the  settling  of  Jews  in   other  portions 
of  the  western  hemisphere. 

In  1654,  thirty-four  years  after  the  Mayflower  landed  the  Pil- 
grim fathers  at  Plymouth,  Mass.,  the  St.  Caterina  arrived  at  New 
Amsterdam  (the  present  New  York)  with  twenty-three  Jews 
on  board,  who  in  all  likelihood  came  from  Brazil,  which  coun- 
try the  Jews  left  when  it  passed  from  the  possession  of  the  Dutch 
to  the  Portuguese.  Shortly  before  the  arrival  of  this  band  of 
Jewish  pilgrims,  the  first  Jews  known  to  have  arrived  at  New 
Amsterdam,  came  on  the  ship  Pear  Tree.  These  were  Jacob 
Barsimson  and  Jacob  Aboab.  It  is  quite  likely  that  even  before 
this,  stray  individual  Jews  may  have  found  their  way  to  some 
portions  or  other  of  the  country. 

These  first  Jewish  arrivals  did  not  secure  the  permission  to 
settle  in  New  Amsterdam  without  difficulty.  Governor  Peter 
Stuyvesant  was  much  opposed  to  them  and  desired  to  expel  them, 
and  it  was  only  after  the  directors  of  the  Dutch  East  India  Com- 
pany in  Holland  espoused  the  cause  of  the  new  comers  that  he 
receded  from  his  position. 

The  most  masterful  of  these  first  settlers  was  Asser  Levy.  He 
made  the  first  fight  for  the  rights  of  citizenship.  In  1655  an 
ordinance  was  passed  that  no  Jews  be  permitted  to  serve  in  the 
militia,  but  that  in  lieu  of  this  they  be  taxed  sixtj^-five  stivers 
each  per  month.  Asser  Levy  refused  to  pay  this  tax  and  peti- 
tioned the  council  for  permission  to  perform  military  dut}''  like 
all  the  other  citizens  of  the  colony,  or  else  to  be  relieved  from 
paying  the  tax.  His  petition  was  rejected.  He  seems  then  to 
have  appealed  to  the  authorities  in  Holland  and  they  appear  to 
have  granted  his  petition,  for  we  find  that  he  did  perform  guard 
duty  like  other  citizens.  He  continued  to  fight  the  cause  of  equal 
rights  for  the  Jews,  for  eventually  Stuyvesant  and  the  council 
granted  them  burgher  rights. 

New  Amsterdam  having  passed  from  the  possession  of  the 
Dutch  to  the  British,  its  citizens  w^ere  required  to  take  the  oath  of 
abjuration.  The  General  Assembly  of  New  York  passed  an  act 
on  November  15.  1727,  to  the  effect  that  when  this  oath  was 
taken  by  a  Jew  the  words  "  upon  the  true  faith  of  a  Christian  " 
might  be  omitted. 


47 

In  1658  fifteen  Jewish  families  arrived  at  Newport,  R.  L, 
from  Holland.  This  community  grew  apace  until  in  time  it 
became  very  prosperous.  In  1763  it  built  the  handsome  syna- 
gogue which  is  still  standing.  The  congregation  was  disorganized 
at  the  time  of  the  Revolution,  when  a  large  number  of  the  Jews 
who  sympathized  with  the  patriot  cause  left  the  city  upon  its  cap- 
ture by  the  British.  Aaron  Lopez,  the  foremost  member  of  the 
community,  with  seventy  others,  removed  to  Leicester,  Mass., 
where  Lopez  founded  the  Leicester  Academy. 

Mention  of  Jews  in  Pennsylvania  occurs  for  the  first  time  in 
1657,  but  there  were  no  Jews  in  considerable  numbers  until  the 
following  century.  The  first  Jewish  name  met  with  in  the 
annals  of  Philadelphia  is  that  of  Jonas  Aaron,  1703.  Jews  as- 
sembled for  religious  service  in  Philadelphia  about  1745.  There 
were  Jewish  settlements  elsewhere  also  in  Pennsylvania;  Joseph 
Simon  arrived  in  Lancaster  in  1740;  Meyer  Hart  was  one  of 
the  founders  of  the  town  of  Easton  in  1747;  and  Aaron  Levy  ar- 
rived in  Northumberland  county  in  1760;  he  became  a  large 
landowner,  and  the  town  of  Aaronsburg,  which  he  assisted  in 
laying  out,  was  named  for  him. 

The  interesting  character.  Dr.  Jacob  Lombrozo,  "  the  Jew 
doctor,"  is  first  mentioned  in  Maryland  archives  in  1657;  he  was 
one  of  the  earliest  medical  practitioners  in  Maryland ;  letters  of 
denization  were  issued  to  him  investing  him  with  all  the  privi- 
leges of  a  native  or  a  naturalized  subject;  he  owned  a  plantation 
in  Charles  county  along  Naugeny  Creek. 

Occasional  mention  dating  from  the  close  of  the  seventeenth 
century  is  made  of  Jews  in  South  Carolina  (Simon  Valentine, 
in  1695)  hut  they  did  not  arrive  in  numbers  till  after  1740. 
The  first  congregation  dates  from   1750. 

The  Colony  of  Georgia  was  settled  in  the  year  1733.  In  July 
of  that  same  year  a  company  of  forty  Jews  arrived.  Jews  may 
therefore  be  considered  in  the  light  of  original  settlers  of  the 
colony;  in  truth  they  constituted  one-third  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  colony.  The  first  native  Georgian  is  said  to  have  been 
Philip  Minis,  the  first  Jewish  child  born  in  the  colony.  In  the 
general  conveyance  of  town  lots,  gardens,  and  farms,  executed 
December  21,    1733,  we  find  among  the  grantees  the  names  of 


48 

seven  Jews.  These  original  settlers  demeaned  themselves  in 
such  fashion  that  Georgia's  authoritative  historian,  Charles  J. 
Jones,  says  of  them,  in  his  histor}'  of  Georgia:  "  In  the  record 
of  the  Jews  of  the  Colony  of  Georgia,  there  is  no  stain." 

The  revolutionary  period.  In  all  the  wars  of  the  country, 
Jews  have  taken  prominent  and  honorable  part.  How  great 
this  participation  was,  has  been  made  clear  by  Mr.  Simon  Wolf, 
of  Washington,  In  his  book,  "  The  American  Jew  as  Patriot, 
Citizen,  and  Soldier,"  the  immediate  occasion  of  whose  compila- 
tion was  the  slanderous  charge  made  by  a  writer  In  the  North 
American  Review  of  December,  1891,  that  no  Jews  had  served 
in  the  Civil  War, 

Beginning  with  the  Revolutionary  struggle,  Jews  have  fought 
on  all  the  battlefields  where  patriots  gave  their  lives  that  the 
country  might  live.  A  brief  resume  of  this  record  will  prove 
of  Interest. 

The  first  step  which  led  eventually  to  the  War  of  the  Revolu- 
tion was  the  signing  of  the  Non-Importation  Resolutions  of  1765 
by  merchants  of  the  Colonies.  Among  these  signers  were  nine 
Jews.  Citizens  of  the  Colon}^  of  Georgia  Issued  a  protest  against 
the  blockade  of  Boston  Harbor  and  taxation  without  representa- 
tion;  this  was  signed  by  the  prominent  citizens  of  the  Colony; 
among  the  signatures  appear  the  names  of  two  Jews. 

Among  the  foremost  citizens  of  South  Carolina  at  this  period 
w^as  a  Jew,  Francis  Salvador.  He  was  a  member  of  the  pro- 
vincial Congress  of  the  Colony  which  assembled  at  Charleston, 
January  11,  1775.  He  signed,  on  the  part  of  the  patriots  of 
South  Carolina,  a  compact  between  the  Tories  and  the  patriots. 
He  was  also  a  member  of  the  second  provincial  Congress  which 
assembled  in  Charleston  In  November,  1775.  He  was  killed  on 
an  expedition  against  the  Tories  and  Indians  on  August  i,  1776. 

The  records  of  the  Revolutionary  army  are  Incomplete;  there 
is  no  way  of  discovering  how  many  fought  In  the  colonial  armies. 
Of  the  list  of  Jew  soldiers  whose  names  have  been  preserved  a 
large  proportion  are  officers.  The  names  of  twenty-seven  of 
these  officers  are  given.  It  is  more  than  likely  that  the  names  of 
many  Jewish  privates  are  unknown,  for  the  number  of  officers  is 
disproportionately   large.     Among   these   officers   special   mention 


49 

may  be  made  of  Col.  David  S.  Franks,  Col.  Solomon  Bush,  Col. 
Isaac  Franks,  Major  Benjamin  Nones,  Capt.  Jacob  de  la  Motta, 
Lieut.  Abraham  Seixas,  and  Lieut.  David  Sarzedas. 

The  company  of  the  Charles  Town  (Charlestown),  S.  C,  regi- 
ment of  militia,  commanded  by  Captain  Richard  Lushington, 
included  tvventy-six  Jews. 

Esther  Hays  was  a  Jewish  heroine  of  the  Revolution.  Her 
husband,  David  Hays,  was  in  the  patriot  army;  she  was  left  with 
her  children  in  the  home  in  Bedford,  Westchester  County,  New 
York.  In  July,  1779,  Tories  entered  her  home  while  she  was 
lying  ill,  and  demanded  of  her  information  concerning  the  patriot 
plans  which  she  was  supposed  to  possess.  When  she  refused,  her 
home  was  fired ;  she  and  her  children  were  saved  by  a  faithful 
negro  servant. 

The  Jewish  congregation  of  New  York,  led  by  its  patriot 
rabbi,  Gershom  Mendes  Seixas,  disbanded  when  the  British  ap- 
proached the  city.  Mr.  Seixas  left  New  York  and,  after  a 
brief  sojourn  at  Stratford,  Conn.,  removed  to  Philadelphia,  tak- 
ing with  him  the  sacred  belongings  of  the  synagogue.  Quite  a 
number  of  the  patriot  Jews  who  had  left  New  York  on  the  ap- 
proach of  the  British  had  settled  in  Philadelphia,  and  desiring 
to  organize  a  congregation,  induced  Mr.  Seixas  to  come  to  Phila- 
delphia for  this  purpose.  He  did  so,  and  organized  with  them 
the  Mickve  Israel  congregation.  In  1784  he  returned  to  New 
York,  where  he  continued  to  be  a  prominent  figure ;  he  was  trustee 
of  King's  (now  Columbia)  College.  In  1789,  at  the  inaugura- 
tion of  President  Washington,  he  participated  'in  the  ceremonies 
together  with  thirteen  ministers  of  other  creeds. 

Haym  Salomon  rendered  invaluable  financial  services  to  the 
government  during  the  darkest  days  of  the  Revolutionary  War. 
He  was  the  chief  individual  reliance  of  Robert  Morris,  the  Gov- 
ernment's Superintendent  of  Finance.  In  Morris'  diary,  in  which 
he  recorded  his  financial  transactions,  Salomon's  name  appears 
seventy-five  times.  The  sums  advanced  by  Salomon  in  aid  of 
the  Government  aggregated  apparently  200,000  dollars. 

Another  Jew,  Isaac  Moses,  helped  out  Robert  Morris  by  pledg- 
ing 3,000  pounds  to  the  patriot  cause. 


50 

Philip  Minis  advanced  7,000  dollars  towards  paying  the  troops 
of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  in  the  State  of  Georgia. 

The  services  of  the  Jews  at  this  critical  time,  when  the  whole 
Jewish  population  was  scarcely  three  thousand,  were  referred  to 
by  Col.  J.  W.  D.  Worthington,  in  1824,  during  the  delibera- 
tions of  the  Maryland  Legislature  on  the  so-called  Jew  Bill,  in 
these  words,  "  There  were  many  valuable  Jewish  members,  oflficers 
principally,  in  the  Revolution,  from  the  South  chiefly,  and  these 
were  ever  at  their  post  and  always  foremost  in  hazardous  enter- 
prises." 

Other  wars.  Just  as  Jews  fought  side  by  side  with  their 
fellow-citizens  of  other  faiths  in  the  War  of  the  Revolution,  so 
also  were  they  at  the  front  in  all  the  other  wars  which  have  been 
waged  in  defence  of  their  country.  The  lists  of  Jews  who  fought 
in  the  War  of  1812,  the  Mexican  War,  and  the  Civil  War  on 
both  sides,  can  be  found  in  the  book  of  Simon  Wolfe,  already  re- 
ferred to,  while  the  list  of  the  Jewish  soldiers  in  the  Spanish  War, 
which  was  fought  after  the  publication  of  this  book,  is  given  in 
the  American  Jewish  Year  Book  for  1900-01,  published  by  the 
Jewish  Publication  Society  of  America. 

Forty-three  Jews  are  recorded  in  the  War  of  1812,  among  them, 
Brigadier-General  Joseph  Bloomfield,  Col.  Nathan  Myers,  Cap- 
tains Myer  Moses  and  Mordecai  Myers,  and  Captain  Levi  Charles 
Harby,  who  fought  also  in  the  Mexican  War  and  the  Seminole 
War  in  Florida. 

Fifty-seven  Jews  are  recorded  in  the  Mexican  War,  among 
them.  General  David  de  Leon,  who  received  the  thanks  of  Con- 
gress twice  for  his  gallantry ;  David  S.  Kauffman,  aide  to  Gen. 
Douglas,  who,  as  speaker  of  the  Texas  Assembly,  had  advocated 
annexation  to  the  United  States,  and  who  served  in  the  United 
States  Congress  as  representative  from  Texas  from  the  date  of 
annexation  to  his  death,  in  1851;  Lieut.  Henry  Seeligson,  who 
bore  himself  so  well  in  the  battle  of  Monterey  that  Gen.  Taylor 
sent  for  him  and  complimented  him  highly.  In  Baltimore,  a 
volunteer  corps  of  Jews  was  organized  in  July,  1846,  for  service 
in  this  war. 

In  the  Civil  War  the  records  of  soldiers  who  fought  on  both 
sides  are  better  kept  than  in  the  earlier  wars.     From  these  rec- 


51 

ords  it  appears  that  over  7,500  Jews  fought  in  the  Northern  and 
Southern  armies,  a  larger  number  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
Jews  who  were  then  in  the  United  States,  about  150,000,  than 
was  furnished  by  any  other  religious  denomination ;  seven  Jews 
received  medals  of  honor  from  Congress  for  conspicuous  gallantry. 
Of  staff  officers  who  were  Jews,  fortj-^  are  mentioned ;  there  were 
eleven  Jewish  naval  officers.  There  were  nine  generals,  eighteen 
colonels,  eight  lieutenant-colonels,  forty  majors,  t\vo  hundred  and 
four  captains,  three  hundred  and  twenty-five  lieutenants,  forty- 
eight  adjutants,  and  twenty-five  surgeons  of  the  Jewish  faith. 
Where  so  many  brave  men  on  both  sides  performed  conspicuous 
deeds  of  gallantry,  it  were  invidious  to  single  out  any  for  special 
mention ;  I  must  therefore  content  myself  with  referring  any  that 
desire  further  detailed  information  to  Mr.  Wolf's  book  and 
Volumes  three,  four,  six,  and  twelve  of  the  Publications  of  the 
American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

For  the  Spanish-American  War,  2,451  Jews  enlisted  In  the 
army,  and  forty-t^vo  in  the  navy;  thirty-two  were  officers. 

In  a  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Wolf,  Gen.  O.  O.  Howard, 
Major-General  of  the  United  States  Army,  wrote,  "  I  can  assure 
you,  my  dear  sir,  that  intrinsically,  there  are  no  more  patriotic 
men  to  be  found  in  the  country  than  those  who  claim  to  be  of 
Hebrew  descent,  and  who  served  under  me  in  parallel  commands 
or  more  directly  under  my  instructions." 

Presidents  and  Jews.  When  Washington  was  inaugurated 
as  the  first  President  of  the  United  States,  the  Jewish  congrega- 
tions of  Savannah,  Ga.,  Newport,  R.  I.,  and  Philadelphia,  New 
York,  Richmond,  and  Charleston,  addressed  letters  of  congratu- 
lation to  him.  Several  extracts  from  Washington's  answers  to 
these  letters  are  here  given  : 

"  I  rejoice  that  a  spirit  of  liberality  and  philanthropy  is  much 
more  prevalent  than  it  formerly  was  among  the  enlightened  na- 
tions of  the  earth,  and  that  your  brethren  will  benefit  thereby  in 
proportion  as  it  shall  become  still  more  extensive." 

"  The  liberality  of  sentiment  toward  each  other,  which  marks 
every  political  and  religious  denomination  of  men  in  this  coun- 
try, stands  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  nations." 

Major  Mordecai  M.  Noah  delivered  an   address  at  the  con- 


52 

secration  of  the  Mill  Street  Synagogue,  New  York,  in  1818.  He 
sent  copies  of  this  address  to  ex-President  John  Adams,  Jefferson, 
and  Madison. 

Jefferson  wrote  in  reply:  "Your  sect,  by  its  sufferings,  has 
furnished  a  remarkable  proof  of  the  universal  spirit  of  reli- 
gious intolerance  inherent  in  every  sect,  disclaimed  by  all  while 
feeble,  and  practiced  by  all  when  in  power.  Our  laws  have  ap- 
plied the  only  antidote  to  this  vice,  protecting  our  religious  as 
they  do  our  civil  rights  by  putting  all  on  an  equal  footing.  But 
more  remains  to  be  done,  for  although  we  are  free  by  the  law, 
we  are  not  so  in  practice." 

Adams  wrote:  "You  have  not  extended  j'our  ideas  of  the 
rights  of  private  judgment  and  the  liberty  of  conscience,  both 
in  religion  and  philosophy,  farther  than  I  do.  Mine  are  limited 
only  by  morals  and  propriety." 

Madison  said,  among  other  things:  "Having  ever  regarded 
the  freedom  of  religiovis  opinions  and  worship  as  equally  belong- 
ing to  every  sect,  and  the  secure  enjoyment  of  it  as  the  best  human 
provision  for  bringing  all,  either  unto  the  same  way  of  thinking, 
or  unto  that  mutual  charity  which  is  the  only  proper  substitute, 
I  observe  with  pleasure  the  view  you  give  of  the  spirit  in  which 
your  sect  partake  of  the  common  blessings  afforded  by  our  Govern- 
ment and  laws." 

Madison  wrote  similarly  in  acknowledgment  of  the  copy  of  a 
discourse  delivered  by  Dr.  de  la  Motta  at  the  consecration  of  the 
synagogue  at  Savannah  in  1820.  "Among  the  features  peculiar 
to  the  political  S3^stem  of  the  United  States,"  wrote  he,  "  is  the 
perfect  equality  of  rights  which  it  secures  to  every  religious  sect. 
And  it  is  particularly  pleasing  to  observe  in  the  citizenship  of  such 
as  have  been  most  distrusted  and  oppressed  elsewhere,  a  happy 
illustration  of  the  safety  and  success  of  this  experiment  of  a  just 
and  benignant  policy.  Equal  laws,  protecting  equal  rights,  are 
found,  as  they  ought  to  be  presumed,  the  best  guarantee  of  loyalty 
and  love  of  country;  as  well  as  best  calculated  to  cherish  the 
mutual  respect  and  good-will  among  citizens  of  every  religious 
denomination  which  are  necessary  to  social  harmony  and  most 
favorable  to  the  advancement  of  truth." 

The  notorious  Damascus  affair  of  1840  took  place  during  ths 


53 

administration  of  Van  Buren.  In  a  letter  addressed  by  John 
Forsyth,  Secretary  of  State,  to  David  Porter,  United  States  Min- 
ister to  Turkey,  instructing  him  to  use  his  good  offices  with  the 
Sultan  in  behalf  of  the  accused  Jews,  occur  these  words:  "  The 
President  is  of  the  opinion  that  from  no  one  can  such  generous 
endeavors  proceed  with  so  much  propriety  and  effect  as  from  the 
representative  of  a  friendly  power,  whose  institutions,  political 
and  civil,  place  upon  the  same  footing  the  worshiper  of  God  of 
every  faith  and  form,  acknowledging  no  distinction  between  the 
Mohammedan,  the  Jew,  and  the  Christian." 

President  Tyler,  in  a  letter  to  Joseph  Simpson,  of  Baltimore, 
Md.,  wrote:  "The  United  States  Government  have  adventured 
upon  a  great  and  noble  experiment,  which  is  believed  to  have 
been  hazarded  In  the  absence  of  all  previous  precedent  —  that 
of  the  total  separation  of  Church  and  State.  No  religious  estab- 
lishment by  law  exists  among  us.  The  conscience  is  left  free 
from  all  restraint  and  each  is  permitted  to  worship  his  Maker 
after  his  own  judgment.  The  offices  of  the  Government  are 
open  alike  to  all.  No  tithes  are  levied  to  support  an  established 
hierarchy,  nor  is  the  fallible  judgment  of  man  set  up  as  the  sure 
and  Infallible  creed  of  faith." 

When  the  famous  order  No.  ii,  commanding  the  expulsion  of 
Jews  from  his  department  was  issued  by  Gen.  Grant,  President 
Lincoln  ordered  It  revoked  as  soon  as  it  was  brought  to  his  no- 
tice. Although  we  have  not  the  President's  own  words,  his 
biographers  Hay  and  Nicolai  refer  to  the  incident  as  follows: 
''  Lincoln  had  a  profound  respect  for  every  form  of  sincere  reli- 
gious belief.  He  steadily  refused  to  show  any  favor  to  any  par- 
ticular denomination  of  Christians,  and  when  General  Grant 
Issued  an  unjust  and  injurious  order  against  the  Jews  expelling 
them  from  his  department,  the  President  ordered  It  to  be  revoked 
the  moment  it  was  brought  to  his  notice." 

In  his  address  at  the  celebration  of  the  two  hundred  and  fiftieth 
anniversary  of  the  Settlement  of  the  Jews  in  this  country,  ex- 
Presldent  Grover  Cleveland  used  these  words:  "It  is  time  for 
the  unreserved  acknowledgment  that  the  toleration  and  equal 
opportunity  accorded  to  the  Jews  of  the  United  States  have  been 
abundantly  repaid  to  us.     And  In  making  up  the  accounts,  let 


54 

us  not  omit  to  put  to  their  credit  the  occasion  presented  to  us 
through  our  concession  to  them  of  toleration  and  equality  for 
strengthening,  by  wholesome  exercise,  the  spirit  of  broadminded 
justice  and  consideration,  which,  as  long  as  we  are  true  to  our- 
selves, we  must  inflexibly  preserve  as  the  distinguishing  and  sav- 
ing traits  of  our  nationalit}\" 

"I  know  that  human  prejudice  —  especially  that  growing  out 
of  race  and  religion  —  is  cruelly  inveterate  and  lasting.  But 
wherever  in  the  world  prejudice  against  the  Jews  still  exists,  there 
can  be  no  place  for  it  among  the  people  of  the  United  States  un- 
less they  are  heedless  of  good  faith,  recreant  to  the  underlying 
principles  of  their  free  government,  and  insensible  to  every  pledge 
involved  in  our  boasted  equality  of  citizenship," 

President  Roosevelt,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  presiding  officer 
of  this  same  celebration,  wrote: 

"  The  celebration  of  the  two  hundred  and  fiftieth  anniversary 
of  the  settlement  of  the  Jews  in  the  United  States  properly  em- 
phasizes a  series  of  historical  facts  of  more  than  merely  national 
significance.  Even  in  our  colonial  period  the  Jews  participated 
in  the  upbuilding  of  this  country,  acquired  citizenship,  and  took 
an  active  part  in  the  development  of  foreign  and  domestic  com- 
merce. During  the  Revolutionary  period  they  aided  the  cause 
of  liberty  by  serving  in  the  Continental  army,  and  by  substantial 
contributions  to  the  empty  treasury  of  the  infant  Republic.  Dur- 
ing the  Civil  War,  thousands  served  in  the  armies  and  mingled 
their  blood  with  the  soil  for  which  they  fought." 

I  would  refer  the  reader  who  desires  further  information  on 
the  subject  to  the  fifteenth  volume  of  the  Publications  of  the 
American  Jewish  Historical  Society,  entitled,  "  Jews  in  the 
Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  United  States,"  compiled  by 
the  President  of  the  Society,  Dr.  Cyrus  Adler,  and  to  the  article, 
"  The  American  Passport  in  Russia,"  also  by  Dr.  Adler,  in  the 
Year  Book  of  the  Jewish  Publication  Society  of  America  for 
1904-5. 

Some  miscellaneous  items.  The  first  statue  to  belong  to  the 
United  States  was  a  bronze  statue  of  Thomas  Jefferson  by  the 
French   sculptor,    David    d'Angers.     This   was   presented   to   the 


55 

United  States  by  the  Jewish  naval  officer,  Lieutenant  (later 
Commodore)  Uriah  P.  Levy,  who  at  the  time  of  his  death,  in 
1862,  was  the  highest  ranking  officer  in  the  U.  S.  Navy,  and 
formally  accepted  by  Congress,  on  motion  of  Charles  Sumner. 

Judah  Touro,  the  famous  Jewish  philanthropist,  contributed 
ten  thousand  dollars  towards  the  Bunker  Hill  monument  fund. 

The  Order  of  B'nai  Brith  erected  in  Fairmount  Park,  Phila- 
delphia, the  group  Religious  Liberty,  by  the  sculptor  Moses 
Ezekiel,  in  1876,  in  celebration  of  the  centennial  of  the  signing 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

Jews  of  New  York  in  171 1  contributed  five  pounds,  twelve 
shillings,  towards  building  the  steeple  of  Trinity  Church;  the 
name  of  Abraham  de  Lucena  occurs  in  the  list  of  donors. 

One  of  the  original  band  of  settlers  of  Georgia  was  Dr.  Samuel 
Nunez  Ribiero,  who  placed  his  medical  knowledge  at  the  service 
of  the  colonists.  Governor  Oglethorpe  called  the  attention  of  the 
trustees  of  the  Colony  to  the  voluntary  services  of  the  physician, 
whereupon  the  trustees  requested  the  Governor  to  offer  him  a 
gratuity  for  these  services. 

The  organization  of  the  Union  Society,  famous  in  the  annals  of 
the  Colony  of  Georgia,  and  later  of  the  State,  dates  from  the  year 
1750,  when  five  of  the  colonists,  all  of  different  religious  denomi- 
nations, joined  in  organizing  a  society  for  charitable  purposes. 
They  called  it  the  "  Union  Society  "  to  designate  that  though  the 
founders  differed  in  their  special  religious  beliefs  they  could  yet 
join  on  the  broad  platform  of  humanit\'.  The  names  of  three  of 
the  founders  have  been  preserved:  Benjamin  Sheftall,  a  Jew;  Peter 
Toudee,  a  Catholic,  and  Richard  Milledge,  an  Episcopalian. 
This  society  is  still  in  existence  and  continues  along  the  lines 
marked  out  by  its  founders. 

Abraham  Kohn,  of  Chicago,  sent  to  Abraham  Lincoln,  before 
his  departure  for  Washington  to  assume  the  office  of  the  Presi- 
dency of  the  United  States,  a  silk  American  flag  of  his  own  manu- 
facture, whose  folds  were  inscribed  in  Hebrew  lettering  witli  the 
third  to  the  ninth  verses  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Biblical  Book 
of  Joshua,  which  closed  with  the  enheartening  words  so  appro- 
priate   to   the   task   before   Lincoln:    "Have   I    not   commanded 


56 

thee?  Be  strong  and  of  good  courage;  be  not  afraid,  neither  be 
thou  dismayed,  for  the  Lord  th}'  God  is  with  thee  whithersoever 
thou  goest." 

The  attempt  has  been  made  herein  to  give  some  salient  facts  con- 
cerning the  good  citizenship  of  the  Jew  in  America.  The  writer 
has  been  compelled  to  sift  a  great  mass  of  material  and  select 
such  facts  and  incidents  as  seemed  to  him  most  significant.  Had 
he  had  the  space  he  should  have  written  in  detail  concerning  the 
settlement,  history,  and  services  of  Jews  in  all  the  States  of  the 
Union.  In  the  Cabinet,  in  the  National  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives,  in  the  diplomatic  serv'ice,  in  State  Legislatures, 
on  the  Bench,  in  Federal,  State,  and  Municipal  offices  hundreds 
of  Jews  have  served  and  are  serving  the  Federal  Government, 
their  States,  and  municipalities. 

The  story  of  the  internal  development  of  Jewish  religious, 
educational,  and  philanthropic  life  as  recorded  in  the  widely 
ramified  activities  of  synagogues  and  religious  schools,  theological 
seminaries  and  rabbinical  conferences,  orphan  asylums  and  indus- 
trial schools,  homes  for  the  aged  and  the  child,  hospitals  and 
homes  for  incurables,  settlements  and  educational  institutes,  pub- 
lication and  historical  societies,  colonization  and  agricultural  aid 
associations,  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to  rehearse.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  religious  currents  and  cross-currents,  re- 
form and  orthodoxy. 

Surely  the  retrospect  over  the  life  of  the  Jews  in  America  dur- 
ing the  past  tvvo  hundred  and  fiftv-five  years  justified  the  tribute 
of  Theodore  Roosevelt,  who  once  expressed  himself  to  the  fol- 
lowing effect: 

"  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  say  that  while  the  Jews  of  the  United 
States,  who  now  number  more  than  a  million,  have  remained  loyal 
to  their  faith  and  their  race  traditions,  they  have  become  indis- 
solubly  incorporated  in  the  great  army  of  A.merican  citizenship, 
prepared  to  make  all  sacrifices  for  the  country,  either  in  war  or 
peace,  and  striving  for  the  perpetuation  of  good  government  and 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  principles  embodied  in  our  Constitu- 
tion. They  are  honorably  distinguished  by  their  industry,  their 
obedience  to  law,  and  their  devotion  to  the  national  welfare." 


57 


THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  AND  GOOD 
CITIZENSHIP 

CHARLES    J.    BONAPARTE,    OF    BALTIMORE,    MD. 

A  favorite  device  for  one  seeking  to  hide  the  truth  from  his 
own  conscience,  when  he  would  do  or  say  or  think  what  he  knows 
to  be  wrong,  is  to  repeat  to  himself  and  others  what,  in 
one  sense,  is  true,  but  wholly  irrelevant,  and  reason  from  it  in 
another  sense  wherein  it  may  be  relevant,  but  is  wholly  untrue. 
For  example,  one  hears  often  in  my  native  State  and  those  to  the 
southward :  "  Ours  is  a  white  man's  country."  In  a  sense,  so 
it  is;  for  not  only  are  the  great  majority  of  Americans  to-day 
white  men,  but  America  is  what  it  is  because  white  men  have 
made  our  laws,  created  our  customs,  fixed  our  standards  of  taste 
and  morals, —  in  short,  given  form  and  breadth  to  our  national 
life.  Beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  America  would  have  been 
a  vastly  different  country  had  it  been  founded  and  ruled  by 
black  men  or  red  men,  yellow  men  or  brown  men.  But  to  argue 
from  this  fact  that  white  Americans  may,  with  a  clear  con- 
science, rob  black  Americans  of  their  votes  or  red  Americans  of 
their  lands,  or  treat  men  of  any  race  or  color,  whether  Ameri- 
cans or  not,  with  barbarity  and  oppression,  all  this  is  the  basest 
sophistry.  Justice  and  fair  dealing  towards  all  men,  loyalty  to 
our  Constitution,  and  respect  for  rights  made  sacred  by  our 
laws,  such  should  be  the  proofs  that  this  is  a  white  man's  coun- 
try, that  men  dwell  in  it  and  rule  it  who  are  white  in  something 
beyond  the  color  of  their  skins. 

So  it  is  often  said,  "  Ours  is  a  Christian  country ;  "  and  in  a 
sense  this  is  said  with  truth.  America  is  what  it  is  very  largely 
because  our  laws  and  government,  our  morals  and  manners,  our 
beliefs  as  to  what  we  live  for  and  how  we  should  live  have  all 
been  the  work  of  Christians.  Again,  it  surely  would  have  been 
another  country  altogether  had  these  been  fashioned  by  Brah- 
mins or  Buddhists,  disciples  of  Confucius  or  followers  of  Mo- 
hammed. But,  when  Americans  in  name  and  Christians  in  name 
would  abridge  the  rights  and  invade  the  civil  and  religious  liberty 
of  ether  Americans  because  these   are  not  Christians  this  proves 


58 

only  that  they  are  themselves  neither  Americans  nor  Christians 
in  more  than  name.  What  must  one  think  of  Christians  who  do 
unto  others  what  they  would  hold  a  grievous  wrong  if  done  by 
others  unto  them. 

In  like  manner  certain  of  our  fellow-citizens  frequently  re- 
peat with  an  emphasis,  which  was  once  complacent,  but  now 
grows  daily  more  uneasy  and  querulous,  "  Ours  is  a  Protestant 
country."  This  statement  is  by  no  means  so  obviously  true  as 
cither  of  the  two  preceding;  or,  at  all  events,  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  true  is  more  restricted  and  far  less  material.  No  one  can 
reasonably  doubt  that  the  United  States  would  have  had  a  widely 
different  history  and  would  be  now^  a  widely  different  nation 
had  all,  or  even  a  majority,  of  the  thirteen  colonies  been  peopled 
by  Mongols  or  Malays,  Mussulmans  or  agnostics;  but,  if  a  ma- 
jority, or  even  all,  of  the  thirteen  colonies  had  been  peopled 
by  English  Catholics,  such  as  Lord  Baltimore  sent  to  Maryland, 
professing  his  principles  and  ruled  by  his  laws,  it  is  a  matter  of 
pure  conjecture  how  far,  if  at  all,  we  should  have  had  a  mate- 
rially different  history  or  be  to-day  a  materially  different  people. 
Nevertheless,  I  think  the  most  of  those  who  say  what  I  have 
just  quoted  mean  more  than  that  a  majority  of  the  American 
people  to-day  profess  in  some  form  to  belong  to  some  denomi- 
nation of  Protestant  Christians.  They  give  a  belated  utterance  to 
an  opinion  widely  prevalent,  indeed  well-nigh  universal,  among 
Protestants,  and,  in  truth,  shared  by  not  a  few  Catholics,  fifty 
years  ago  or  even  later.  "  Undoubtedly,"  said  the  New  York 
Nation  in  its  issue  of  Jan.  30,  1868,  "  political  equality,  free 
public  education  under  Protestant  auspices,  and  a  national  rule 
which  compels  sectarian  toleration,  are  forces  which  must  in 
time  either  destroy  Catholicism  in  this  country  or  essentially 
change  its  nature."  There  was  nothing  strange  or  unusual  then 
in  these  views:  that  the  United  States  was  and  would  remain 
a  Protestant  country  seemed,  to  some  within,  no  less  than  prac- 
tically all  those  without  the  Catholic  church,  almost  a  matter  of 
course  even  forty  years  ago.  It  was  assumed,  complacently  or 
regretfully,  as  the  case  might  be,  but  practically  assumed  by 
many,  if  not  by  all.  True,  Nous  avons  change  tout  cela,  or, 
rather,  all   has  been  changed,  not  by  us,  or,  consciously  and  of 


59 

set  purpose,  by  any  one,  but  through  the  silent  workings  of  time 
and  human  experience.  The  mustard  seed  planted  when  Arch- 
bishop Carroll  received  his  episcopal  consecration  fell  on  no  un- 
grateful, no  alien  soil.  Men  have  slowly,  often  reluctantly, 
learned  this  as  they  saw  a  stately  tree  with  deep  roots  and  spread- 
ing branches  grow  from  that  seed  and  overshadow  them.  As  to 
this,  we  Catholics  had  no  right  to  complain  of  public  opinion :  our 
fellow-citizens  of  other  faiths  thought  of  us  much  as  we  thought 
of  ourselves.  If  to  some  few  of  them,  even  now,  an  American 
Catholic  seems  in  some  sort  a  contradiction  in  terms,  a  few,  if 
but  a  few,  of  both  our  own  clergy  and  of  our  own  laity  are 
still  rubbing  their  eyes  to  be  sure  that  such  a  person  is  not  in 
some  sort  an  impostor,  that  he  is  truly  a  Catholic  while  no  less 
truly  an  American. 

There  is  doubtless  some  measure  of  justification  for  this  frame 
of  mind  in  both  cases.  In  the  immense  mass  of  foreign  matter 
absorbed  by  the  American  body  politic  certain  Catholic  elements 
have  been,  perhaps,  the  least  rapidly  digested  in  the  gastric  juice 
of  our  free  institutions,  and  are  responsible  for  the  most  acute 
symptoms  of  our  political  dyspepsia.  To  discuss  all  the  reasons 
for  this  seeming  fact  would  tempt  me  into  too  wide  a  digression, 
but  I  may  glance  at  one  of  the  most  obvious  and  most  potent; 
namely,  the  great  disproportion  in  numbers  betw^een  the  Cath- 
olic population  of  the  emancipated  colonies  and  the  multitudes  of 
Catholic  immigrants  to  be  fashioned  on  its  model.  No  Prot- 
estant communion  native  to  the  United  States  has  had  to  trans- 
form from  aliens  into  citizens  so  vast  a  number  of  its  members, 
and  I  doubt  if  any,  even  the  humblest,  among  these  communions 
undertook  the  task  so  weak  and  so  poor  and  so  widely  dispersed. 

The  foundation  laid,  fourteen  years  after  the  Pilgrim  Fathers 
landed  at  Plj^mouth,  when  a  handful  of  exiles  raised  the  cross 
at  St.  Mary's,  has  had  to  bear  a  gigantic  superstructure  beneath 
whose  weight  it  might  well  have  crumbled  had  it  been  built  by 
hands.  When  he  reflects  how  vast  has  been  the  work  of  assimi- 
lation and  inspiration  imposed  on  the  little  body  of  American 
Catholics  who  greeted  their  first  bishop  in  1789,  and  then  rec- 
ognizes how  thoroughly  and  how  rapidly,  on  the  whole,  and 
bearing  in  mind  all  the  circumstances,  that  work  has  been   and 


6o 

is  done,  far  from  marvelling  at  its  present  incompleteness,  any 
fair-minded  man  will  find  his  faith  revived  and  strengthened  in 
the  boundless  potency  for  good  stored  in  our  orderly  freedom, 
any  man  believing  as  I  do  will  see  a  further  and  greater  cause 
for  thankfulness  and  hope.  He  will  feel  assured  for  the  future, 
as  he  has  known  in  the  past,  the  proven  and  abiding  guidance  of 
Almighty  God. 

If  the  notion  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  a  stranger  and  a 
sojourner  in  our  land  has  not  been  wholly  outgrown  even  by 
quite  all  of  her  own  children  this  is  because  even  now  some 
Catholics  have  but  half  learned,  although  they  are  every  day 
learning  more  thoroughly  and  more  and  more  rapidly,  that  they 
are  Americans,  and  not  Irishmen  or  Germans,  Frenchmen,  Ital- 
ians, or  Poles;  not,  understand  me  well,  Americans  first  and 
some  sort  of  foreigners  afterwards,  but  Americans  first,  last,  and 
all  the  time,  and  nothing  else  at  all,  at  least  in  a  sense  which 
would  make  them  any  the  less  Americans.  No  man  can  really 
have  two  countries  any  more  than  he  can  faithfully  serve  two 
masters.  A  hybrid  type  of  citizenship  will  be  always  and  every- 
where ephemeral  and  sterile:  a  great  Nation  like  ours  can  toler- 
ate no  divided  allegiance;  those  who  would  be  hers  at  all  must 
be  hers  altogether.  Where  a  man  was  born  she  has,  indeed, 
never  been  over-curious  to  ask.  Alexander  Hamilton  and  Albert 
Gallatin  are  no  more  her  stepchildren  than  great  (to  the  nth. 
power)  grand-children  of  the  Mayflower's  passengers;  but  no  one 
is  or  can  be  an  American  citizen,  in  the  full  and  true  sense  of  the 
word,  who  feels  himself  an  Irishman  or  a  German  or  anything 
else,  except  as  George  Washington  or  John  Adams  might  have 
felt  himself  an  Englishman  or  (to  compare  a  very  small  person 
to  great  ones)  I  might  feel  mj^self  a  Corsican, 

I  say  this,  of  course,  subject  to  all  reasonable  qualifications. 
No  civilized  man,  certainly  no  Christian  can  be  indifferent  to 
the  good  or  ^11  fortune  of  any  branch  of  the  human  family,  and 
the  land  where  one's  kindred  dwell,  where  one's  parents  are 
buried  where  one's  childhood  was  spent,  must  be,  to  a  man  of 
ordinary  sentiments,  something  more  than  a  red  or  blue  patch 
on  the  map.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  those  who,  on  the  shores 
of    New    England,    in    the    shadow    of    the   Alleghanies,    by   the 


6i 

Mississipppi  or  the  Great  Lakes  or  the  far  Pacific,  remember 
to  honor  Saint  Patrick  or  Saint  George  or  Saint  Andrew  or 
Saint  Boniface  or  Saint  Wenceslaus,  if  the  last  is  the  saint  I 
mean,  and  if  I  have  his  name  aright;  I  would  put  no  prohibitory 
tariff  on  foreign  sanctit}^  the  production  of  the  domestic  article 
will  not  be  checked  bj^  its  importation,  nor  will  the  supply  ex- 
ceed the  demand.  As  our  country  makes  her  own  one  band  of 
immigrants  after  another,  she  takes  with  them  their  traditions 
and  their  ideals,  their  memories  and  their  hopes,  to  blend  these 
in  the  moral  and  intellectual  heritage  of  all  her  children.  But 
whilst  I  think  only  the  better  of  a  fellow-citizen  because  his  birth- 
place or  that  of  his  fathers  yet  claims  his  sympathies  and  shares 
his  affections  I  hold  him  as  yet  unworthy  to  be  held  an  American 
if  he  has  still  to  learn  that  here  and  here  only  are  all  his  inter- 
ests and  all  his  duties. 

But,  although  men  may  perhaps  be  found  who  even  yet  think, 
as  some  sensible  men  thought  twenty-five  and  many  more  fifty 
years  ago,  that  the  atmosphere  of  American  liberty  is  malarial 
to  the  Church  of  Rome,  who  believe  that  in  it  she  lives  but  to 
languish,  and  who  still  strain  their  eyes  hoping  to  see  her  cease 
to  be  what  she  has  ever  been  or  else  cease  to  be  at  all  in  their 
sight,  a  fair-minded  and  well-informed  American,  whatever  his 
creed,  must  now  realize  that  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  United 
States  becomes  every  day  more  thoroughly  acclimated  and  at 
home,  that  she  is  no  carpet-bagger,  that  her  cross  is  planted  to 
stand. 

On  Nov.  6,  1789  a  bull  of  Pope  Pius  VI.  founded  the  Ameri- 
can hierarchy.  At  that  date  the  Catholic  population  of  the 
United  States  was  estimated,  probably  too  liberally,  at  forty 
thousand,  or  about  the  one  hundredth  part  of  our  entire  people. 
There  were  in  all  some  thirty  priests,  hardly  so  many  chapels,  no 
edifice  which  could,  with  any  propriety  of  language  be  called  a 
church,  not  one  asylum  or  hospital  or  other  benevolent  institution, 
and  but  a  single  school  or  seat  of  learning  of  any  class, —  George- 
town College,  then  just  founded.  There  are  now  several  times 
as  many  bishops  as  there  were  then  priests,  more  priests  than 
there  were  then  adult  male  laymen,  more  churches  than  there 
were  Catholic  families  in  the  thirteen   States  in    1789,   convents 


62 

and  monasteries,  schools  and  colleges,  asylums  and  hospitals,  of 
which  the  combined  means  of  the  entire  Catholic  population  of 
those  days  could  not  have  built  a  tenth.  It  is  true  that  within 
the  past  century  and  a  quarter  the  growth  of  this  country  has 
been  marvellous,  but  the  growth  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  this 
country  has  been  far  more  marvellous:  while  the  number  of 
American  citizens  has  increased  some  twenty  or  twenty-five  fold, 
the  number  of  American  Catholics  has  increased  nearly  or  quite 
four  hundred  fold.  If  an  amazing  progress  in  numbers  and 
wealth  were  sufficient,  the  Catholic  Church's  vitality  in  America 
would  need  no  further  proof.  But  for  some  this  may  not  be 
enough,  for  there  might  be  in  this  very  prodigious  outward  devel- 
opment the  germ  of  a  deep  inward  decay.  Doubtless  to  feel  as 
well  assured  as  I  feel  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  here  to  stay  and 
to  prosper,  one  must  perhaps  believe  as  I  believe ;  but  surely  any 
man  able  to  see  things  at  all  as  they  are,  and  having  any  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts,  will  recognize  that  nowhere  in  the  Christian 
world  is  there  greater  zeal  or  greater  harmony  in  the  Catholic 
Church  than  here ;  nowhere  are  the  relations  of  the  hierarchy  with 
the  See  of  Rome,  of  the  clergj^  with  the  hierarch)',  of  the  laity 
with  the  clergy,  more  nearly  what  devout  Catholics  could  rea- 
sonably wish  them  to  be,  and  those  of  the  Church  with  the  civil 
power  and  of  her  members  with  citizens  of  other  faiths,  marked 
by  less  bitterness  and  less  friction.  Blind  men  may  argue 
whether  the  Catholic  Church  can  live  in  the  United  States;  but, 
for  those  who  have  eyes  and  can  and  will  open  them  to  the 
truth,  that  question  is  a  question  no  longer.  If  they  see  any- 
thing, they  see  that  she  can  live  because  she  has  lived  and  lives 
to-day, —  lives,  too,  not  as  a  sickly  exotic.  She  grows  and  flour- 
ishes and  waxes  strong  with  a  sound  and  healthy  grow^th,  gaining, 
not  in  mere  size,  but  in  vigor,  daily;  in  short,  she  is  and  feels 
herself  to  be  at  home.  If  we  apply  to  the  sum  of  American 
institutions  the  vague  and  much  abused  term  "  liberty,"  a  cen- 
tury's history  proves  that  liberty  is  good  for  the  Catholic  Church ; 
and,  if  it  has  "  essentially  changed  the  nature  of  Catholicism," 
the  change  has  been  but  to  make  the  Church  more  enterprising 
and  aggressive,  more  than  ever  full  of  the  missionary,  proselytising 
spirit  which   marks   a  truly   living  faith.     And,   to  my  mind   at 


63 

least,  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  the  Church  has 
greatly  prospered  in  America  precisely  because  America  greatly 
needed  and  still  needs  the  Catholic  Church.  She  is  a  Church  of 
the  plain  people:  recruiting  her  hierarchy  from  every  rank  and 
class  of  men,  living  much  less  with  or  for  the  rich  and  learned 
than  with  and  for  that  great  mass  of  humanity  whose  passions, 
untamed  by  letters,  are  daily  goaded  by  physical  wants,  her  influ- 
ence is  most  salutary  where  Ardor  civium  prava  jubentium  con- 
stitutes an  ever  present  danger.  The  working  of  American  de- 
mocracy has  no  doubt  shown  many  a  priori  objections  to  popular 
government  to  be^  exaggerated  or  groundless,  but  it  has  also 
shown  no  less  clearly  that  demos,  like  other  sovereigns,  is  often 
selfish,  short-sighted,  lazy,  and  misled  by  bad  advice. 

At  the  first  "  Conference  for  Good  City  Government,"  which 
was  held  fifteen  years  ago  in  this  city,  I  listened  to  an  unusually 
thoughtful  and  outspoken  paper  by  a  Dr.  Ecob,  then  the  pastor 
of  a  Protestant  congregation  in  Albany,  on  "  The  Relation  of  the 
Church  to  Municipal  Reform."  The  reverend  writer  spoke 
with  an  indignation,  unfortunately  but  too  well  founded,  of  the 
inertness  and  seeming  indifference  of  organized  Christianity  in 
all  forms  when  face  to  face  with  the  scandals  and  abuses  of  our 
politics,  and  more  especially  of  our  municipal  politics;  and  I  was 
much  interested  to  note  why  in  his  judgment  "  the  Church,"  as 
he  used  the  term,  had  incurred  this  severe  censure.     He  said : 

"  The  Church,  like  Kcats's  Saturn,  has  sat  as  '  quiet  as  a 
stone '  under  the  influence  of  certain  traditions.  One  of  these 
most  sedative  and  relaxing  traditions  is  that  the  Church  is  the 
'  Kingdom  of  God  on  Earth.'  Another  is  that  everything  outside 
of  the  Church  is  *  secular.'  These  two  are  but  the  obverse  and 
the  reverse  of  the  same  coin.  .  .  .  We  have  narrowed  the 
life  and  work  of  the  Church  down  to  a  sort  of  wreckage  s^^stem. 
The  world  is  a  great,  noisy,  heedless,  sensuous,  vulgar  pleasure 
excursion.  The  huge  boat  has  struck  and  is  wrecked  on  the 
rock  of  sin.  The  hundreds  of  wretched  victims  are  struggling 
in  the  water,  clinging  to  the  rigging,  hugging  the  rocks,  starv- 
ing, freezing,  perishing.  The  world  is  shipwrecked.  The 
Church  is  safe  and  sound  on  the  everlasting  shore.  When  it  is 
not  too  busy  with  its  psalmody  and  Greek  sermons  and  theologi- 


64 

cal  debates,  it  does  a  little  business  in  the  line  of  getting  a  few 
of  the  wrecked  worldlings  ashore.  But  it  is  so  particular  as  to 
its  life-saving  methods,  so  fastidious  as  to  the  kind  of  people  it 
deigns  to  save,  so  tired  most  of  the  time  with  the  whole  wreckage 
business,  that  the  percentage  of  salvation  is  lamentably  small." 

That  Catholics,  and  the  clergy  no  less  than  the  laity,  have  their 
full  share  of  responsibility  for  misgovemment  of  even'  kind  in 
the  United  States,  and  particularly  for  the  misgovemment  of  our 
great  cities,  I  would  be  the  last  to  deny;  but,  whatever  may  be 
the  shortcomings  in  this  respect  of  individual  Catholics  of  any 
class  or  rank,  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  these  shortcomings  are  not 
excused  for  them  by  the  theory  which  Dr.  Ecob  condemned. 
The  ideas  that  in  this  world  the  sheep  and  goats  should  be  parted 
off  from  each  other  and  fed  in  separate  pastures,  that  the  just 
can  be  fashioned  into  a  very  select  little  corporation  of  their  own 
with  interests,  sympathies,  moral  standards,  in  which  the  unjust 
have  no  part  or  lot;  that  there  may  be  fields  of  human  thought 
and  action  wherewith  the  Church  has  no  concern ;  and  even  that 
the  Church  consists,  in  some  sort,  of  the  good  and  pious  only, 
and  that  others  belong  to  the  "  World," —  these  ideas  are  doubt- 
less familiar  enough,  but  for  a  Catholic  they  are  the  outcrop  of 
a  rank  heresy,  which  has  taken  definite  shape  more  than  once  and 
always  to  be  emphatically  condemned  by  the  Church.  These  peo- 
ple whom  we  generally  call  "  Albigenses "  call  themseh'cs 
"  Catharists,"  because  among  them  "  the  Pure," —  that  is  to  say 
in  more  modern  phraseology,  "  church  members  in  good  stand- 
ing,"—  those  who  "  have  experienced  a  change  of  heart,"  were 
expected  to  fulfil  the  law  of  righteousness,  which  for  "the  Im- 
pure "  existed  only  to  be  admired  and  broken. 

It  may  be  worth  a  moment's  delay  to  correct  here  an  error 
in  nomenclature,  which,  if  apparently  slight  in  itself,  may  yet 
be  mischievous,  as  the  source,  no  less  than  the  fruit,  of  some  con- 
fusion of  thought.  I  was  asked  to  speak  of  "  The  Roman  Catho- 
lic and  Good  Citizenship."  The  term  "  Roman  Catholic "  is 
justified  in  our  country,  by  convenience,  by  usage,  and  by  law; 
but  it  must  be  remembered  that  for  those  thus  designated  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  a  "Roman  Catholic  Church:"  the  Church 
of  which  they  are  members  is  "  Catholic  and  Roman,"  "  Roman," 


65 

because  in  fellowship  with  the  See  of  Rome  and  obedient  to  the 
Roman  pontiff,  "  Catholic  "  because,  according  to  its  own  creed, 
it  ought  to  extend  to  every  land  and  ought  to  include  every 
human  being.  For  the  Catholic  Church  does  not  mean  the 
Catholic  hierarchy  nor  the  Catholic  clergy  nor  devout  Catholics 
nor  "  practical  "  Catholics  nor  professed  Catholics.  Every  bap- 
tized man  is  a  member  of  it:  every  unbaptized  man  is  a  candidate 
for  membership.  The  former  may  be  the  bitterest  enemy  of 
Catholicism  or  Christianity,  of  religion  in  any  form,  but  this 
does  not  change  the  fact  of  his  membership  any  more  than  the 
bullocks'  blood  washed  from  Julian's  head  the  waters  of  bap- 
tism :  he  can  no  more  refuse  to  be  a  Christian  and  elect  to  be 
something  else  than  he  can  refuse  to  be  a  man  and  elect  to  be 
a  gorilla  or  an  elephant.  The  second  may  have  never  heard 
of  the  Church  or  her  faith  or  her  Founder,  or  he  may  know 
much  or  little  about  these  only  to  despise  and  revile  them,  yet 
he  is  none  the  less  the  Church's  divinely  appointed  ward  and 
pupil.  And,  as  no  man,  however  perverse  in  doctrine,  however 
degraded  in  nature,  however  odious  in  sentiments  or  conduct,  can 
rightfully  escape  her  authority  or  cease  to  awaken  her  interest, 
so  nothing  that  he  can  do  or  say  or  think  or  feel  is  beyond  or 
beneath  or  aside  from  her  ken.  For  every  idle  word  he  shall 
answer  and  in  aught  wherefor  he  shall  answer  is  the  Universal 
Church  without  concern. 

Apply,  then,  this  fundamental  Catholic  doctrine  to  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  of  American  citizenship.  Will  I  be  told  by 
Catholics  that  the  Church  can  stand  mute  and  unmoved  whilst 
her  children,  actively  or  passively,  assist  to  make  any  spot  of  the 
nation's  soil  a  Sodom,  or  the  exercise  of  power  the  nation  has 
given,  the  neglect  of  duties  the  nation  has  imposed,  a  source  of 
damnation  for  soul  and  body?  In  our  countrj'^  do  we  Catholics 
render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's  if  we  raise  no 
finger  while  our  sovereign,  the  American  people,  is  robbed,  dis- 
graced, misled  or  debauched?  And,  if  we  render  not  to  Caesar 
his  due,  if  we  are  not  recreant  to  our  trust  as  citizens,  can  we 
claim  that  it  avails  us  to  justification  if  we  fast  according  to  the 
law  and  give  tithes  of  all  we  possess  ?  Believe  me,  fellow-citizens, 
there  is  no  room  for  Catholics  to  so  think  or  to  so  act  with  a 


66 

clear  conscience.  A  well-known  English  statesman  was  called 
"a  good  Protestant,  but  a  bad  Christian."  I  leave  others  to 
criticise  this  description,  but  no  one  can  be  at  once  a  good  Catho- 
lic and  a  bad  father  or  son,  husband  or  citizen:  if  he  fail  in  any 
one  of  the  duties  of  life,  he  fails  in  his  duty  to  his  Church. 

I  am  here  to  point  out  why  American  Catholics  are  bound 
by  their  own  doctrines  to  be  good  citizens,  why  the  growth  and 
vigor  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  America,  if  rightly  understood, 
is  a  source  of  strength  and  a  cause  of  thankfulness  to  those  who 
would  make  all  Americans  better  citizens.  I  am  unwilling  to 
show  the  respect  of  an  answer  for  mere  calumnies  or  mere  revil- 
ings,  whether  of  any  Church  or  of  her  children.  There  is,  how- 
ever, one  argument  against  the  Catholic  Church,  or,  at  least, 
one  outcry  doing  duty  as  an  argument,  which  merits  a  passing 
word,  if  for  no  other  reason,  because  of  its  antiquity.  Pilate  was 
told  that  his  prisoner  would  make  himself  King  of  the  Jews: 
we  are  sometimes  told  to-day  that  the  Church  aspires  to  tem- 
poral dominion.  He  asked  for  and  heard  the  truth  and  declared 
the  charge  groundless,  yet  he  feared  the  cry,  "If  thou  release  this 
man,  thou  art  no  friend  to  Caesar."  There  have  been  some  men 
in  public  life  among  us  as  consciously  unjust  when  they  cowered 
before  the  like  clamor.  On  this  subject  let  us  ask  but  two  ques- 
tions: were  those  men  who  thus  drove  Pilate  to  shed  innocent 
blood,  were  they,  in  truth,  "friends  to  Cssar?"  Is  any  one 
who,  in  our  day  and  country,  would  proscribe  men  for  their 
faith  and  stir  anew  the  dying  embers  of  sectarian  hatred,  is  such 
a  man  in  truth  a  friend  to  American  Liberty? 

THE  PROTESTANT  AND  GOOD  CITIZENSHIP 

W.  H,  P.  FAUNCE, 
PRESIDENT    OF    BROWN    UNIVERSITY 

It  has  often  been  suspected,  and  sometimes  affirmed,  that  reli- 
gious faith  is  hostile  to  the  undivided  loyalty  of  true  citizenship. 
This  was  the  constant  charge  brought  against  the  early  Christians. 
They  refused  to  sacrifice  to  the  gods  of  their  fathers.  The 
best  of  the  Roman  emperors  could  see  in  the  early  Christian  cour- 


67 

age  only  the  obstinacy  of  the  fanatic  and  the  revolutionist.  This 
was  the  charge  brought  against  the  founder  of  my  State,  Roger 
Williams.  Indeed,  the  greatest  perplexities  of  monarchs  and 
legislatures  and  courts  of  law  have  been  in  dealing  with  those 
who  affirm  that  religious  duty  is  superior  to  legal  obligation. 

Protestantism,  by  its  assertion  of  the  right  of  private  judgment, 
might,  at  first  glance,  seem  peculiarly  open  to  the  charge  of  being 
a  dangerous  form  of  faith.  The  consistent  Protestant  affirms 
that  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  that  can 
coerce  his  judgment  as  to  religious  truth  or  force  him  to  act 
against  his  conviction  of  religious  duty.  He  affirms,  with  Francis 
Lieber,  that  "  conscience  is  beyond  the  reach  of  government."  Is 
not  such  a  man  more  dangerous  to  the  State  than  even  those 
who  have  yielded  their  judgment  to  ecclesiastical  authority?  Is 
not, —  so  many  political  rulers  have  asked, —  is  not  Protestantism 
the  religious  phase  of  social  disunion  and  political  anarchy? 

But  those  who  cherish  such  fears  have  little  knowledge  of  his- 
tory and  no  understanding  of  the  Protestant  position.  All  his- 
tory shows  us  that  there  have  been  no  more  loyal,  compact,  and 
coherent  nations  in  the  world  than  those  professing  the  Protestant 
faith.  Cromwell's  Ironsides,  Wellington's  regiments,  Washing- 
ton's hungry  but  devoted  troops,  found  in  the  Protestant  religion 
a  power  which  welded  them  into  invincible  armies.  There  are, 
to-day,  no  more  united,  loyal,  patriotic  races  on  earth  than  those 
which  are  dominated  and  energized  by  Protestant  Christianity. 

For  the  essential  principle  of  Protestantism  is  not  the  right 
of  private  judgment:  that  is  merely  a  corollary  of  our  funda- 
mental principle.  That  fundamental  principle  of  Protestantism 
is  the  direct  access  of  every  human  soul  to  God,  unimpeded,  un- 
hampered by  the  necessary  intervention  of  any  priest,  ritual, 
ceremony,  or  formula.  But,  if  all  souls  have  direct  access  to 
their  Creator,  then  all  are  in  some  real  sense  equal,  and  democracy 
becomes  the  ideal  in  government,  in  society,  and  in  the  church. 
And  this  democracy  is  not  the  rule  of  the  mob :  it  is  at  heart  a 
theocracy,  a  social  order  in  which  all  men  are  near  to  one  an- 
other because  all  are  near  to  God.  When  men  are  confessing 
their  allegiance  to  God,  are  listening  for  his  voice,  and  offering 
themselves   for  his  service,   then  we  have  the  closest  unitv   that 


68 

the  world  can  know,  then  we  have  stability  in  p;overnment  and 
patriotism  in  the  people,  and  in  the  full  realization  of  the  divine 
Fatherhood  we  find  the  surest  possible  guarantee  of  human  broth- 
erhood. It  is  the  creeds  imposed  by  force,  the  rituals  prescribed 
by  authority,  that  have  divided  the  world  and  plunged  it  into 
darkness.  It  is  direct  access  of  every  human  being  to  God  that 
alone  can  bring  unity  out  of  diversity  and  establish  a  social  order 
which  shall  be  identical  with  the  kingdom  of  God. 

But,  if  Protestants  accept  and  proclaim  this  principle,  they  are 
bound,  more  deeply  than  any  others  in  the  modern  world,  to 
translate  the  will  of  God  into  the  laws,  the  attitudes,  and  institu- 
tions of  modern  society.  They  cannot  throw  their  responsi- 
bility on  any  sacred  order.  They  cannot  claim,  as  laymen,  that 
it  is  the  business  of  ecclesiastics  to  save  the  world.  They  cannot 
rest  in  the  security  of  an  infallible  organization.  They  know 
full  well  that,  unless  they  can  incarnate  the  divine  will  in  the 
life  of  the  citizen,  unless  they  translate  the  law  of  God  into  the 
codes  of  men,  unless  they  Christianize  the  institutions  of  the  mod- 
ern world,  the  divine  kingdom  cannot  com.e  on  earth,  but  will 
be  only  the  dream  of  a  dreamer  who  dreams  that  he  has  been 
dreaming.  One  of  the  first  truths  of  Protestantism  is  that  no 
man  can  be  a  good  Christian  unless  he  is  a  good  citizen. 

Such  citizenship  is  needed  in  the  political  life  of  our  time. 
We  can  not  farm  out  our  political  duties.  Thousands  of  men 
fail  to  realize  how  clearly  civic  obligation  flows  from  religious 
faith.  We  cannot  pray  "Thy  kingdom  come "  unless  we  are 
making  it  come  in  the  caucus  and  the  voting  booth.  The  farmer 
who  refuses  to  leave  his  farm  on  election  da5\  the  scholar  who  is 
so  absorbed  in  his  book  or  his  laboratory  that  he  cares  not  who 
is  chosen  as  governor  or  president,  the  gilded  youths  who  sit  idly 
in  arm-chairs  gazing  out  of  club  windows  on  election  morning, 
while  newly  arrived  immigrants  vote  "  in  blocks  of  five." —  all 
these  men  are  guilty  of  a  species  of  atheism.  They  either  do  not 
believe  in  any  God  whatever,  or  they  believe  in  a  God  who  does 
not  care,  a  power  which  is  absent  or  impotent. 

The  primitive  Christians  \\ho  believe  that  in  a  few  years  the 
heavens  shall  roll  together  as  a  scroll  and  all  human  governments 
vanish,  might  be  pardoned  if  they  felt  no  interest  in  the  govern- 


69 

ment.  We  can  forgive  them  if  they  were  not  enthusiastic  over 
allegiance  to  Herod  or  Nero.  But  we  who  believe  that  America 
is  chosen  as  the  future  leader  in  the  world's  civilization,  and 
who  believe  also  in  God,  have  a  duty  that  is  written  on  the  sky 
and  that  calls  aloud  in  every  soul.  We  need  to  supplement  the 
individualism  of  the  New  Testament  by  the  magnificent  social 
zeal  and  corporate  consciousness  of  the  Old  Testament.  We 
need  to  see  Moses  standing  at  the  court  of  Pharaoh,  or  ascending 
the  mountain,  to  cry  in  audacious  devotion,  "  If  thou  wilt  not 
forgive  the  people,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book!  "  We 
need  to  see  Elijah  defying  Ahab,  and  Nehemiah  building  the 
walls  of  the  city,  and  all  the  Old  Testament  prophets  aflame  with 
zeal  for  civic  righteousness  and  ready  to  die  that  Israel  might  live. 
We  need  to  remember  that  the  atomistic  virtue  of  the  eighteenth 
century  is  as  far  from  the  Bible  as  from  the  spirit  of  the  twentieth 
century.  The  good  man  of  the  thirteenth  century  was  Simeon 
Stylites,  isolated  on  his  pillar.  The  good  man  of  the  fifteenth 
century  was  Thomas  a  Kempis,  whose  "  Imitation  of  Christ " 
has  no  faintest  allusion  to  any  wrongs  in  this  world  to  be  righted. 
The  good  man  of  Bunyan's  dream  was  one  who  thrust  his  fingers 
into  his  ears  to  stop  the  cry  of  wife  and  children  while  he  started 
on  his  long  flight  through  the  world  to  the  celestial  gate.  But 
the  good  man  of  our  time  is  the  one  who  turns  back  into  the 
city  Destruction,  and  resolves  never  to  leave  it  until  he  has 
transformed  some  portion  of  it,  at  least,  into  the  enduring  City 
of  God. 

Indeed,  it  is  in  the  modern  city  that  Christian  patriotism 
finds  its  chief  challenge  and  its  finest  opportunity.  In  America 
we  have  succeeded  in  our  States  fairly  well,  but  we  have  steadily 
failed  in  our  cities.  The  government  of  Massachusetts  is  better 
than  that  of  Boston.  Illinois  is  far  nearer  our  ideals  than  is 
Chicago.  Our  States  or  colonies  were  developed  before  our  cities 
grew  up.  In  Europe  precisely  the  opposite  is  the  case.  Paris  is 
older  than  France,  and  London  vastly  older  than  Great  Britain. 
Hence,  in  the  Old  World,  there  is  a  fine  loyalty  to  the  city  which 
we,  in  America,  are  only  beginning  to  acquire.  Not  until  we  do 
acquire  shall  we  understand  the  enthusiasm  of  Saint  Paul  for 
his  Roman  citizenship,  which  could  lead  him  to  describe  himself 


70 

as  both  "  a  servant  of  Christ  "  and  "  a  citizen  of  no  mean  city." 

But  this  duty  of  the  citizen  is  more  than  political,  it  is  indus- 
trial as  well.  The  chief  problems  of  our  time  are  not  political, 
they  are  economic.  How  can  the  ever-expanding  industrial  and 
commercial  activity  of  our  time  be  shot  with  Christian  aim  and 
Christian  principles?  How  can  modern  business  be  made  Chris- 
tian? The  question  is  not  how  can  we  Christianize  the  results 
of  business.  We  also  believe  that  the  money  which  men  make 
out  of  business  should  be  devoted  to  Christian  ends,  that  some 
of  it  should  be  given  to  the  poor,  to  the  sick,  to  education,  to 
religion, —  we  all  believe  that.  But  the  question  is  not  how  to 
Christianize  the  results  of  business,  but  the  process  itself,  so  that, 
whether  money  is  made  or  lost,  the  daily  toil  of  all  the  millions 
who  work  in  factory  and  shop  and  mill  and  office  shall  be  Chris- 
tian toil.  We  need  to  be  Christian  citizens  not  after  business 
hours  are  over,  but  while  the  business  is  being  done.  Many  a 
citizen  who  would  willingly  die  for  his  country  in  tim.e  of  war 
is  quite  willing  to  work  against  his  country,  to  circumvent  its 
laws,  elude  its  officials,  and  prey  upon  its  citizens  in  time  of  peace. 
The  chief  stealing  of  our  time  is  not  done  by  the  footpad  or  the 
burglar,  it  is  done  by  every  man  who  profits  by  adulteration  in 
manufacture  or  deception  in  trade,  or  by  accepting  wages  for 
which  he  has  not  rendered  full  equivalent.  Dishonest  labor, 
whether  it  go  into  shoes  or  cotton  cloth,  into  the  making  of  life 
preservers  or  impure  food,  into  the  building  of  a  capitol  at  Albany 
or  Harrisburg  or  Philadelphia,  is  not  only  individual  falsity,  but 
social  treachery  and  a  subtle  form  of  attack  upon  the  State.  All 
false  and  deceitful  craftsmanship  is  to  be  classed  with  the  work 
of  the  brigand  and  the  pirate,  and  all  true,  genuine  work  is  part 
of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

All  legitimate  business  is  a  form  of  social  service.  "  My  busi- 
ness," saj^s  the  owner  proudly,  as  he  looks  about  his  mill  or  his 
store.  But  in  the  closely  woven  network  of  modern  industrial 
life  what  possible  enterprise  is  there  of  which  a  man  can  truly 
say  "mine"?  In  the  da^s  \\hen  one  m.an  made  a  whole  pair 
of  shoes,  the  possessive  pronoun  had  some  significance.  But, 
when  thousands  of  pairs  are  daily  turned  out  of  one  factory,  no 
living  man   can,   in  the  sight  of  God,   look   upon  the  thousands 


71 

and  say  "  mine."  "  When  ye  pray,"  said  Jesus,  "  say  our," 
Not  only  when  we  pray,  but  when  we  org;anize  and  administer 
and  produce,  the  modern  world  is  slowly  learning  to  say  "  our." 

We  talk  of  some  enterprises  as  "  public  utilities."  But  such 
distinctions  are  rapidly  becoming  shadowy  and  unreal.  The 
smallest  private  undertaking,  as  it  expands,  becomes  either  a  pub- 
lic utility  or  a  public  damage  and  impediment.  None  of  us 
manufacture  to  himself.  If  the  plumber  shall  say,  I  am  not  re- 
sponsible for  society,  is  he  therefore  not  responsible?  If  the 
switch-tender  shall  say,  I  am  not  of  the  social  body,  is  he  there- 
fore not  of  the  body?  If  the  vendor  of  milk  shall  say,  I  am  not 
of  the  State,  is  he  therefore  free  from  the  State?  "  Every  man," 
says  a  recent  writer  in  the  London  Spectator,  "  whether  he  is 
tilling  the  soil,  heaving  coal,  laying  bricks,  writing  books,  organiz- 
ing business,  or  planning  some  industrial  work  great  or  small,  must 
accustom  himself  to  feel  that  he  is  doing  it  not  for  himself  or 
his  family  alone,  but  partly  for  his  countrj^  In  every  form  of 
activity,  the  motherland  must  be  the  silent  partner  who  calls 
upon  him  for  an  extra  margin  of  effort,  energy,  and  self-sacri- 
fice." 

The  idea  of  doing  business  purely  for  pecuniary  gain  is  one 
that  we  no  longer  tolerate  in  certain  forms  of  social  effort.  If 
we  suspect  that  to  be  the  chief  motive  of  the  physician,  we  do  not 
ask  him  to  enter  our  homes.  If  we  find  it  in  the  clergj^man,  we 
pay  no  heed  to  his  message.  The  common  soldier  is  supposed 
to  have  risen  far  above  it.  The  fireman  who  has  been  two  weeks 
on  the  force  of  fire  fighters  is  supposed  to  have  a  far  higher  aim 
in  view.  The  trained  nurse  and  the  college  professor  are  surely 
not  living  chiefly  for  financial  reward.  But  why  do  we  tolerate 
and  expect  in  industrial  pursuits  a  sordidness  which  we  repudiate 
in  other  callings?  Why  do  we  expect  the  fireman  who  rescues 
the  goods  in  the  store  to  labor  from  any  higher  motive  than  the 
man  who  sells  the  goods  behind  the  counter?  Why  do  we  ex- 
pect the  man  who  teaches  in  a  school-house  to  live  by  a  different 
code  from  the  contractor  who  builds  the  school-house?  All  such 
distinctions  are  conventional  and  unreal.  All  men  must  live 
for  the  State  or  against  it.  The  aim  of  the  baker  must  be  to  feed 
the  hungry,  the  aim  of  the  clothier  to  clothe  the  naked.     If  they 


72 

do  this  efficiently,  they  will  be  financially  rewarded ;  but  they 
aim,  if  they  be  true  citizens,  not  at  the  reward,  but  at  the  public 
service.  Private  business,  in  the  strict  meaning  of  the  words,  is 
as  inconceivable  as  private  fighting  in  the  army.  The  maxims 
of  Poor  Richard,  coldly  calculating,  shrewdly  egotistic,  are  a  poor 
foundation  for  social  co-operation.  No  man  becomes  lawfully 
rich  unless  he  enriches  society  in  the  very  process  of  enriching 
himself.  If  he  rises,  he  must  rise  as  the  mountain  rises,  lifting 
forests  and  homes  and  villages  on  its  broad  shoulders  into  new 
light  and  air.  The  saving  of  the  individual  becomes  meaning- 
less except  as  it  involves  in  some  measure  the  salvation  of  society. 

What  vast  changes  would  come  over  the  modern  world  if 
these  truths  should  come  home  to  our  men  and  women  of  leisure. 
What  vast  access  of  moral  energy  would  ensue  if  these  things 
were  believed  by  the  men  who,  after  their  business  hours,  give 
all  their  time  to  sport,  and  the  women  who  devote  their  woman- 
hood to  the  lust  of  the  eye  and  the  pride  of  life.  Would  that 
the  men  who  now  look  on  the  world  as  a  mere  orange  to  be 
squeezed  for  their  own  delectation  could  see  it  as  a  sphere  for 
the  noblest  service.  Would  that  the  women  who  in  England  are 
defying  the  laws  of  the  State  and  the  laws  of  their  own  being 
in  the  violent  demand  for  political  power  could  see  the  world  as 
a  post  of  duty  rather  than  a  place  for  frenzied  self-assertion. 

Would  that  the  men  and  women  of  leisure  and  property  could 
ponder  the  meaning  of  the  appalling  incident  in  the  ancient  para- 
ble, "  A  certain  beggar  was  brought  whom  they  laid  daily  at 
a  rich  man's  gate."  Not  in  the  rich  man's  hospital,  where  no 
feeblest  cry  could  reach  the  man's  ear,  but  at  his  gate,  where 
he  could  not  step  over  that  strange  object  or  walk  around  it,  but 
must  come  face  to  face  with  his  new  problem  and  his  inevitable 
duty.  Civilization  to-day  is  placing  poverty  at  the  very  gate  of 
wealth,  weakness  at  the  gate  of  strength,  and  ignorance  at  the 
gate  of  the  university. 


73 
THE  NEGRO  AND  GOOD  CITIZENSHIP 

NOTES   OF  AN   ADDRESS   BY  DR.   BOOKER  T.   WASHINGTON 

Mr.  Washington  spoke  with  his  usual  force  and  fervor  on  his 
favorite  topic.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  few  notes  were  at  the 
time  taken  of  his  address.  At  the  very  beginning  of  it  he  dis- 
claimed to  represent  any  particular  denomination  among  his  peo- 
ple, saying  humorously  that  he  was  content  to  let  the  men  of 
the  white  race  thresh  out  these  religious  questions  by  themselves, 
the  negro  having  impartially  selected  his  faith  from  them  all. 
Mr.  Washington's  chief  aim  in  his  address  was  to  prove  the  grow- 
ing fitness  of  his  race  for  good-citizenship.  In  part  he  said :  "  Our 
race  has  accumulated  more  than  $350,000,000  of  property.  We 
have  at  least  500  local  negro  business  leagues  scattered  throughout 
the  country.  When  we  began  there  were  a  few  drug  stores  owned 
and  controlled  by  black  people.  Now  we  have  nearly  two  hun- 
dred. A  few  years  ago  there  were  only  about  a  half-dozen  negro 
banks  in  the  country;  now  there  are  forty-seven.  Dry  goods 
stores,  grocery  stores  and  industrial  enterprises  to  the  number  of 
over  10,000  have  sprung  up  in  all  parts  of  the  country.  A  little 
more  than  forty  years  ago,  when  the  negro  was  made  free,  he  had 
almost  no  acres  of  land.  Now  he  has  an  acreage  nearly  as  large 
as  New  England.  Then  he  had  almost  no  homes;  now  he  has 
400,000  homes.  Then  he  had  few  farms;  now  he  has  200,000 
farms.  Then  he  had  no  insurance  companies;  now  he  has  eighty- 
five.  When  the  American  negro  was  made  free  about  3  per  cent 
could  read  and  write;  now  57  per  cent  can  both  read  and  write. 
Then  he  had  few  churches;  now  he  has  26,000  churches,  with 
$28,000,000  worth  of  church  property. 

"  The  greater  part  of  this  progress  has  taken  place  in  our 
Southern  States,  right  in  the  midst  of  the  people  Avho  once  owned 
our  bodies.  Here,  let  me  add,  this  growth  could  not  have  taken 
place  unless  we  had  in  each  one  of  the  Southern  communities  not 
a  few  white  men  who  have  believed  in  us  and  stood  by  us  and 
stimulated  and  encouraged  us.  A  few  days  ago  in  conversation 
with  a  gentleman  who  has  traveled  widely  in  Africa  and  in  other 
parts  of  the  world,  including  the  United  States,  he  remarked  to 


74 

me  that  the  negro  in  America  was  at  least  one  hundred  years 
ahead  of  the  negro  anywhere  else  in  the  world.  I  have  traveled 
recently  through  the  States  of  Mississippi,  South  Carolina,  and 
portions  of  Virginia  and  West  Virginia  for  the  purpose  of  see- 
ing for  myself  the  actual  condition  of  our  race.  Everywhere  I 
noted  progress  —  marvelous  progress  in  many  cases. 

"  Before  wc  became  a  free  people  there  were  those  who  freely 
predicted  that  the  negro  race  would  disappear  because,  it  was 
said,  in  a  state  of  freedom,  the  race  could  neither  shelter,  clothe, 
nor  feed  itself.  To-day  we  number  more  than  ten  millions.  For 
more  than  forty  years  we  have  been  free,  and  except  in  the  case 
of  local  or  special  calamities,  we  have  never  yet  called  upon  the 
nation  for  a  dollar  wnth  which  to  either  shelter,  clothe  or  feed 
us.     To  have  achieved  this  result  is  glory  within  itself. 

"  In  his  haste  and  ambition  to  grow  in  material  and  commer- 
cial directions,  the  negro  has  not  overlooked  some  of  the  more 
fundamental  things  in  life.  No  matter  how  many  dollars  an  in- 
dividual or  organization  may  accumulate,  no  matter  how  many 
business  enterprises  he  may  be  responsible  for,  failure  and  not 
success  will  be  the  result  in  each  case  unless  he  takes  along  with 
material  prosperity  the  underlying  principles  of  high  moral,  right- 
eous living,  both  as  individuals  and  as  organizations." 

In  these  respects  also  Mr.  Washington  found  a  great  and 
growing  improvement  among  those  he  lovingly  called  "  his  peo- 
ple." In  a  burst  of  impassioned  eloquence  he  declared:  "If  I 
could  go  back  and  Providence  should  ask  me  what  color  I  wanted 
my  skin  to  be,  I  would  say:  '  Class  mie  as  an  American  negro! 
The  colored  man,  he  maintained,  was  more  like  the  Americans 
than  any  other  class  of  people  who  flocked  to  our  shores;  they  for- 
got their  old  customs  and  language  and  adopted  the  American 
customs  and  language  quicker  than  any  other  race.  "  Deep  down 
in  his  heart  the  negro  has  the  same  love,  the  same  respect,  the 
same  reverence  for  your  political  institutions  as  any  one  of  you, 
and  he  stands  just  as  ready  to  give  and  to  lay  down  his  life  at 
his  country's  call." 


75 


Second  Topic  of  the  Coxcress, 

"THE   NATURE  AND   MISSION   OF  RELIGIOUS 
LIBERALISM." 

opening  remarks  of  henry  w.  wilbur,   president  of  the 

congress: 

All  races  of  men  have  in  their  own  time,  and  in  their  own  way 
tapped  the  same  sources  of  truth  and  wisdom,  and  old  time  and 
new  have  each  voiced  their  apprehensions  of  truth  in  a  common 
lanjruage,  under  the  impulse  and  inspiration  of  the  same  spirit. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  schooled  in  the  poetry  and  philosophy 
of  Greece,  anticipated  the  plain  postulate  of  George  Fox,  the 
shoemaker  of  Drayton,  when  he  declared  that  "  God  hath  filled 
His  Universe  with  the  seed  of  salvation." 

Buddha  could  not  have  been  far  from  the  same  spirit  that  was 
in  Jesus,  when  he  said :  "  A  man  who  foolishly  does  me  wrong 
(or  regards  me  as  being  or  doing  wrong)  I  will  return  to  him 
the  protection  of  my  ungrudging  love ;  the  more  evil  goes  from 
him,  the  more  good  shall  go  from  me." 

The  ancient  prophet  who  declared  that  "  the  work  of  right- 
eousness shall  be  peace,  and  the  effect  of  righteousness  quietness 
and  assurance  forever,"  defined  the  basis  of  spiritual  kinship  for 
all  time. 

If  the  purpose  of  this  Congress  is  to  have  any  practical  meaning, 
it  lies  in  emphasising  this  kinship,  and  in  uniting  those  who  possess 
a  common  interest  in  behalf  of  a  common  betterment. 

The  vital  problems  of  our  time  have  to  do  with  those  processes 
which  will  make  the  new  earth,  in  which  righteousness  shall  be 
based  on  justice. 

The  world  at  home  and  in  foreign  lands  needs  service,  for  the 
repairing  of  bruised  bodies  and  the  healing  of  broken  spirits. 
Beneath  all  skies  the  divinest  call  comes  to  serve  with  the  distinct 
desire  to  serve. 

Wherever  men  need  help,  no  man  need  ask  the  helper  whether 


76 

he  wears  the  label  of  Calvin  or  Charming,  any  more  than  we 
should  inquire  under  what  phase  of  the  moon  he  was  born.  The 
broadest  commission,  and  the  best  possible  equipment  should  be 
given  the  missionary,  with  no  questions  as  to  his  creed,  or  his 
theological  antecedents. 

Wherever  there  is  a  covert  or  an  open  assault  upon  religious 
or  civic  liberty,  the  call  to  do  battle  with  the  uncarnal  weapons 
of  the  spirit  will  come  to  the  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals, 

Our  conflict  must  be  in  behalf  of  those  ideals,  as  yet  only 
partially  realized,  which  have  made  modern  progress  possible,  and 
without  which  the  hope  of  our  children  and  our  children's  chil- 
dren for  wider  opportunit)'^  and  better  living  will  be  an  idle  dream. 

As  we  stand  on  the  threshold  of  three  days  of  communion  in 
the  unity  of  the  spirit,  the  prayer  of  him  who  now  addresses 
you  is,  that  our  deliberations  may  bear  fruit  in  definite  and  con- 
tinuous effort  against  every  wrong  that  needs  resistance ;  in  behalf 
of  every  cause  that  needs  assistance,  and  for  growing  good  to  men 
beneath  the  all-beholding  sun. 


WHAT  IS  RELIGIOUS  LIBERALISM? 

REV.-  WILLIAM   C.   GANNETT,   D.   D. 

I  like  not  that  ism  in  our  subject.  The  implications  of  an 
ism  are  not  generous.  The  term  may  slip  in  as  I  speak,  but 
let  us  word  our  question  more  simply, —  What  is  it  to  be  a  Liberal 
in   religion  ? 

To  answer  the  question,  shall  I  try  to  define,  to  describe,  or 
to  illustrate? 

If  to  define, —  the  Liberal  is  he  who  emphasizes  four  things  in 
religion ;  Freedom,  Fellowship,  Character,  Service.  Those  four 
words  indicate  more  of  his  characteristics  than  any  others  I  know. 
It  is  the  emphasis  on  these  four  things  that  distinguishes  him: 
the  Liberal  makes  them  the  supreme  things  in  religion. 

If  I  try  to  describe,  the  description  but  enlarges  upon  this 
definition. 

First,  the  Freedom.  Freedom  rather  than  what?  Rather  than 
authority  of  any  kind  asserting  itself  as  master  of  souls.     Liberal- 


77 

ism  is  not  a  position  in  thought  but  a  posture  of  the  one  thinking; 
the  attitude  of  a  mind  that  may  greatly  value  tradition,  and  greatly 
the  wisdom  of  teachers,  and  greatly  the  consensus  of  more  com- 
petent judges  than  itself,  but  that  holds, —  In  religion  I  must  be 
judge  for  myself  of  all  this  wisdom  of  others;  whatever  the  source 
of  my  knowledge  in  things  scientific,  and  whatever  my  deference 
there,  in  things  ethical  and  spiritual  truth  can  be  "  truth  "  to 
me  only  as  I  see  for  myself  it  is  truth.  So  the  Liberal  in  re- 
ligion seeks  to  be  open-minded  and  reverent  to  facts  wherever 
he  meets  them  in  old  or  in  new;  expectant  of  truth  in  gleams 
and  glimmers  of  old,  expectant  of  clearing  and  widening  truth 
as  the  yesterdays  grow  towards  to-day,  expectant  in  morrows 
of  truth  brighter  and  surer  and  larger  than  that  seen  to-day. 
The  Liberal  believes  in  the  Soul  of  man  —  his  reason,  his  con- 
science, his  spiritual  apprehension  —  as  the  organ  of  all  truth- 
seeking  and  finding;  and  an  organ  whose  powers  grow  in  the 
individual  and  in  the  race.  Whose  powers  grow;  therefore  he 
ever  more  and  more  trusts  in  the  Soul  itself  as  seeker  and  finder. 
Whose  powers  grow;  therefore  he  can  never  trust  his  own  find- 
ings as  final.  The  findings  are  "  truth  "  in  the  sense  that  they 
are  truth  on  the  way  to  be  truer.  That  is  one  of  his  tests:  is 
his  "  truth  "  truer  to-day  than  it  was  yesterday?  In  other  words, 
he  knows  that  his  truth  is  an  error,  and  he  even  wants  it  to  be. 
But  he  also  knows  that  his  errors,  and  all  mankind's  errors,  are 
fore-shadows  and  symbols  of  truth.  And  with  this  kind  of  truth 
he  is  more  than  content, —  he  is  inspired !  The  foundation  on 
which  everything  rests  is  the  nature  of  the  Soul.  He  believes 
in  the  Soul, —  he  is  a  Soul, —  he  believes  in  himself. 

The  Liberal  has  his  fears.  He  is  not  afraid  of  his  doubts,  but 
he  is  afraid  of  his  prejudices;  and  more  afraid  of  his  own  than 
of  anyone's  else.  He  does  not  love,  but  he  is  not  afraid  of,  the 
hard  names  in  religion.  As  commonly  used,  he  recognizes  them 
as  titles  of  honor:  "agnostic,"  as  naming  a  noble  modest}'^  and 
honesty  of  mind;  "  infidelity"  as  consisting  not  in  believing,  nor 
in  disbelieving,  but  as  Thomas  Paine  said,  in  professing  to  be- 
lieve what  one  does  not  believe ;  "  heresy,"  as  to-day's  name 
for  to-morrow's  probable  orthodoxy;  non-Christian,  as  often  the 
name  of  one  who  believes  with   Christ   in   the  things  which   he 


78 

emphasized,  though  not  in  the  theories  about  Christ  which  rever- 
ent men  have  devised ;  "  atheist,"  as  usually  meaning  one  who  be- 
lieves more  in  God  than  those  who  fling  the  word  as  a  stone.  He 
is  not  afraid  of  these  hard  names,  then ;  but  he  has  seen  so  many 
'■'  liberal  "  bigots,  and  has  caught  himself  in  so  many  bigotries, 
that  he  is  much  afraid  of  his  own  self-satisfactions  in  religion, 
his  own  sense  of  orthodoxy,  of  intellectual  rightness  and  superiority 
to  others.  When  comparing  opinions  and  faiths  with  another, 
he  is  on  his  guard  therefore;  he  seeks  to  put  himself  in  the  other's 
place,  to  look  at  the  other's  reverence  from  the  inside,  to  allow 
for  the  personal  equation  both  in  himself  and  the  other,  to  hail 
the  well-put  objection  to  views  that  he  cherishes,  and,  as  Emer- 
son counseled,  to  welcome  his  own  overthrow  in  an  argument;  in 
a  word,  to  avoid  dogmatism  and  arrogance;  and  this  for  his  own 
sake  as  much  as  in  justice  to  others, —  for  his  own  sake,  lest  he 
fail  to  recognize  angels  of  thought  in  unlovely  forms. 

Such  self-reliance  and  such  self-distrust,  such  range  in  the  truth- 
quest  and  such  cautions  as  these  in  the  quest,  may  serve  to  indi- 
cate the  Freedom  of  the  Liberal  in  religion. 

Next,  what  is  the  Fellowship  that  he  emphasizes?  Fellow- 
ship, rather  than  what?  Fellowship  in  place  of  the  spirit  of  sect. 
From  freedom  as  the  attitude  of  the  m.ind  in  relation  to  truth, 
almost  of  necessity  the  spirit  of  fellowship  follows  as  the  atti- 
tude of  the  heart  towards  all  other  seekers  and  lovers  of  truth. 
For  as  we  realize  that  the  best  of  us  has  not  attained,  and  that 
we  are  all  on  the  road  together,  this  fact  of  togetherness  becomes 
more  important  than  our  own  particular  place  in  the  procession. 
Even  if  we  think,  as  so  many  of  us  do,  that  our  place  is  at  the 
head  of  the  procession,  "  difference  from  us  is  no  longer  measure 
of  absurdity  " —  Emerson's  phrase  again, —  and  we  cannot  help 
knowing  that  these  comrades  training  behind  us  are  where  we 
were  but  yesterday ;  and  that  those  others  hidden  still  farther  back 
in  the  dust  are  where  we,  or  our  fathers,  were  the  day  before  yes- 
terday ;  and  also  that  on  roads  all  out  of  sight  are  many  other 
travellers  hasting  along  with  heads  as  high  and  faces  as  joyous, 
perhaps,  or  as  puzzled,  as  ours, —  and,  being  out  of  sight  over  the 
mountains  and  over  the  seas  —  say  in  Buddha  land, —  who  really 


79 

knows  but  that  some  of  them  may  be  well  in  advance  of  us  on 
their  parallel  roads? 

Then,  too,  as  the  spirit  cf  fellowship  grows  and  we  are  better 
acquainted  with  our  fellow-travellers,  the  kinship  in  ideas,  in 
ideals,  in  reverences,  in  aims,  becomes  so  apparent  that  it  begins 
to  seem  folly  to  insist  on  camping  so  carefully  apart  as  men  of 
a  different  blood  in  religion.  We  recognize  the  fact  that,  in 
spite  of  our  differing  names  and  ancestries,  we  are  more  like  than 
unlike  in  religion ;  and  that  the  things  which  unite  us  are  far 
more  important  to  religion  than  the  things  which  divide  us;  that 
"  religions  are  many,  but  religion  is  one."  And  at  last  we  real- 
ize two  other  humbling,  and  therefore  exalting,  facts:  (i)  that, 
whatever  our  fancied  vantage  in  truth  of  ideas,  not  a  few  of 
these  comrades  of  ours  are  our  sure  superiors  in  the  reality  of  re- 
ligion,—  some  of  them  by  a  truer  thought,  some  by  a  deeper  ex- 
perience of  soul-life,  some  by  closer  loj'alty  to  their  vision ;  and 
(2)  that  almost  every  band  of  them,  that  is,  every  "sect,"  has 
something  of  truth,  some  rightful  emphasis,  that  we  lack,  and 
that  we  had  better  try  to  assimilate,  if  we  would  be  perfect.  As 
we  realize  this,  that  dream  about  being  the  head  of  the  proces- 
sion fades  out,  and  we  wake  to  move  on  humble  and  grateful,  and 
therefore  faster  than  ever. 

Something  like  this  is  the  experience  of  the  individual  Lib- 
eral, as  he  goes  on  his  thought-road ;  and  the  experience  of  the 
race  as  it  moves  on  the  thought-roads  of  history  is  but  this  written 
large.  "  Toleration  in  religion,  the  best  fruit  of  the  last  four 
centuries,"  President  Eliot  wrote  as  inscription  for  one  of  the 
Water-Gate  tablets  at  the  Columbian  Exposition.  But  during 
these  centuries,  in  the  nations  that  best  deserve  the  adjective 
"  civilized,"  that  fruit  has  itself  greatly  bettered.  "  Toleration/' 
a  cause  which  had  its  own  martyrs  in  the  Reformation  time,  has 
become  a  word  of  /^tolerance  to-day.  There  are  horrors  still 
of  anti-Semitic  persecution  in  Russia,  and  horrors  of  anti-Chris- 
tian persecution  going  on  at  this  verj^  moment  ir  Asia  Minor; 
but  who  in  England,  or  who  in  America,  to-day  asks  to  be  "  tol- 
erated," and  who  claims  the  right  to  "tolerate?"  Toleration 
has  given  way  to  equality,   and  equality  is  now  giving  way  to 


8b 

sympathy.  Actual  sympathy  with  ideas  that  our  minds  have  to 
reject, —  reverence  for  reverences  that  we  cannot  share, —  this  is 
to-day  the  ripening  fruit  of  the  centuries  in  the  Liberal  circles 
of  our  happier  lands.  It  implies  a  closer  brotherhood  than  even 
the  noble  old  motto,  "  In  essentials  unity,  in  non-essentials  liberty, 
in  all  things  charity;"  for  that  left  unsettled  the  perilous  ques- 
tion, What  are  "essentials"?  and  in  non-essentials  it  prescribes, 
at  most,  charity;  but  this  new  spirit  of  Fellowship  is  passing 
beyond  charity  into  actual  sympathy.  It  means  that  men  are  ac- 
quiring power  to  see  the  soul  of  truth  in  what  they  deem  error, 
and  to  value  the  unities  as  more  really  vital  than  the  differences 
of  faith,  and  to  think  of  the  varjn'ng  Churches  not  as  "  sects  " 
but  as  "  branches  "  growing  out  of  one  stock  of  religion.  Speed 
the  day  when  millions  shall  see  these  things  and  be  glad !  But 
meanwhile  this  is  only  the  Liberal's  spirit  of  Fellowship  in  reli- 
gion. 

To  illustrate  this  point,  may  I  venture  to  tell  a  dream  that  I 
had  not  long  ago  about  Phillips  Brooks?  A  mere  dream,  not  a 
story ;  but  even  a  dream  may  have  parable-power.  I  had  been 
working  on  hymns  overnight,  and  woke  in  the  morning  to  find 
myself  wishing  that  I  had  Phillips  Brooks'  permission  to  change 
just  one  word  in  the  last  line  of  his  beautiful  Christmas  hymn, 
"  O  little  town  of  Bethlehem," —  the  hymn  that  ends,  "  O,  come 
to  us,  abide  with  us,  Our  Lord  Emmanuel."  I  wanted  permis- 
sion to  print  it  "  our  Heart's  Emmanuel,"  to  make  it  still  more 
poetical,  but  mainly  to  make  it  more  honest  for  personal  use. 
After  wishing  my  wish,  I  must  have  fallen  asleep  again ;  for 
the  next  thing  I  knew  I  was  in  the  presence  of  Phillips  Brooks 
up  in  heaven,  the  request  on  my  lips.  "  May  I  alter  the  one 
word  ?  "  I  pleaded,  and  explained  my  Puritan  motive.  "  O  yes, 
if  you  wish  to,"  he  heartily  answered,  and  beamed  a  great  smile. 
So  encouraged,  I  ventured  further  and  said,  "  You  all  sing  the 
same  words  up  here,  I  suppose?"  "  O,  never!"  he  answered 
quickly,  "  O,  never!  We  never  sing  the  same  words  up  here. 
But  we  all  mean  the  same  things  by  what  we  sing.  It's  the  mean- 
ings that  make  the  song  here."  A  little  abashed,  like  Abou  ben 
Adhem,  I  spoke  more  low,  but  cheerly  still, — "  Down  there  we 
have  to  think  of  the  words  to  get  them  honest  to  the  meanings." 


8i 

"Yes,  down  there!"  he  replied,  and  beamed  another  great  smile, 
as  if  by  and  by  I,  too,  would  know  better.  Then  I  awoke.  My 
dream  was  like  that, —  we  cannot  vouch  for  the  words  of  a 
dream ;  and  far  be  it  from  me  to  claim  that  I  have  quoted  the 
good  Bishop  aright!  Yet  I  believe  that  what  I  seemed  to  hear 
is  what  he  would  say  up  there  in  his  light, —  that  it's  the  meaning 
that  makes  the  song,  and  the  heart's  meaning  at  that;  that  these 
meanings  are  necessarily  rendered  in  varying  words  by  varying 
minds;  and  that  while  the  rule  for  "down  here"  is,  "Let  each 
mind  be  true  to  itself  in  its  utterance,"  the  best  of  our  heart's 
truth  is  actually  missed  by  us  if  we  fancy  that  our  own  form 
of  words  or  of  thought  is  essential  to  the  utterance. 

Time  does  not  allow  me  to  describe  at  this  length  the  other 
two  emphases  of  the  Liberal, —  his  emphasis  on  Character  and 
on  Service  as  supreme  elements  in  religion.  Character  is  his  test. 
Service  is  his  aim,  in  religion.  Not  so  has  it  been  in  the  past. 
Has  character  been  the  test  of  religion?  Speaking  through  the 
fifth-century  Greek,  Christianity's  answer  was,  "  My  test  is  Creed 

—  it  is  what  you  believe  about  the  persons  of  God  and  the  natures 
of  Christ."  Speaking  through  the  great  Roman  Church,  for  a 
thousand  years  her  answer  was,  "  My  test  is  Ritual, —  the  pra^^er, 
the  confession,  the  penance,  the  baptism,  the  attendance  at  Mass." 
Speaking  through  Protestants,  until  very  lately,  and  still  speak- 
ing through  many,  her  word  has  again  been,  "  My  test  is  a  Creed, 

—  it  is  what  you  believe  about  the  salvation  through  Christ." 
And  these  men  have  often  slurred  goodness  as  "  mere  morality," 
and  called  righteousness  "  filthy  rags,"  and  character  set  to  God's 
will  "  deadly  doing."  The  stress,  and  the  actual  test  as  applied, 
have  been  thus;  yet  theory  has  always  included  goodness  as  a 
needful  part  of  religion,  and  there  have  always  been  thousands 
of  humble  souls,  Jew,  Greek,  Roman,  Puritan,  living  their  will- 
life  in  God. 

But  Religion,  speaking  from  age  to  age  through  those  most 
truly  religious  in  many  a  faith,  and  now  strenuously  and  steadily 
speaking  through  the  Liberal,  says,  "  Character  is  my  test.  I 
give  men  thoughts,  the  largest  they  think;  I  give  men  faiths,  the 
deepest  they  trust;  I  give  feelings,  the  strongest  that  move;  but 
I  measure  by  none  of  these.     It  is  not  what  you  believe,   nor 


82 

feel,  nor  do  with  your  hand,  nor  what  you  see  to  be  right, —  it  is 
how  much  you  zuill  of  the  right  that  you  see  and  do  that  I  care 
for.  The  actual  intent  and  endeavor  —  in  great  or  in  little,  and 
whether  success  comes  or  failure  —  are  all  that  I  look  at.  So 
far  as  a  man's  will  is  set  on  the  right  as  he  sees  the  right,  it  allies 
him  to  God :  so  far  as  it  is  set  on  the  wrong  as  he  sees  the  wrong, 
it  parts  him  from  God.  This,  nothing  less,  and  no  more,  is  my 
test."  And  in  the  new  Christianity,  the  new  Judaism,  the  new 
reh'gions  of  all  nam.es  flowering  to-day,  the  old  tests  of  religion 
are  being  transformed  into  this  nobler  test  established  by  prophet 
and  poet  and  saint. 

So,  too,  the  aim  in  religion  is  transfiguring  itself  under  the 
liberalizing  trend  of  the  age.  Not  for  self-expression,  as  some 
say;  not  for  self-culture,  as  others  say;  not  for  self-salvation,  as 
it  has  been  so  long  said  in  the  past,  are  we  here  in  the  world, 
says  the  Liberal ;  but  for  the  expression,  the  culture,  the  salva- 
tion of  others ;  for  the  self-culture  only  as  means  to  the  greater 
service  of  others  than  self.  We  are  here  to  grow,  but  to  grow 
to  the  end  that  we  may  make  grow ;  and  as  means  to  that  end, 
the  self-growth  also  is  hallowed.  We  are  learning  to  apply  the 
secret  of  Jesus:  He  that  would  save  his  life  loseth  it,  but  whoso 
loseth  his  life  for  others  is  saving  it.  The  soul  that  in  trying 
to  save  others  forgets  that  it  needs  to  be  saved,  does  7iot  need  to 
be, —  it  is  saved  already,  the  Liberal  holds.  Many  with  Whit- 
tier  see  it  to-day, — 

"  That  to  be  saved  is  only  this, — 
Salvation    from  our   selfishness." 

Our  Quaker  poet,  with  his  stress  all  against  creed  and  ritual, 
and  all  for  character  and  love,  is  more  and  more  accepted  as  the 
psalmist  of  our  daj^ 

Moreover,  as  the  others  can  only  be  saved  by  us  here,  the 
scene  of  salvation  is  shifting  from  heaven  to  earth.  Look  out, 
and  not  in ;  look  neither  forward  nor  back,  but  around, —  is  the 
new  pointing.  The  two  "  great  commandments "  are  growing 
"  liker "  than  ever,  and  virtually  one.  Within  the  old  Christ 
a  new  Christ  is  emerging,  the  human  within  the  divine, —  Christ 
the  All-Manly,  Christ  the  All-Brotherly.     "  All-Manly  "  means 


83 

Character;  "All-brotherly"  Service.  And  more  than  ever  his 
true  worship  is  felt  to  be  imitation.  ''Be  a  Christ!  Everything 
is  summed  up  in  that."  The  ideal  which  Christendom  worships, 
and  the  aim  which  Christendom  seeks,  are  ceasing  to  contradict 
one  another. 

And  what  is  the  "  Church  "  of  men  who  are  trying  to  be  Christs 
and  finish  his  work?  Mr.  Stead  answers:  "  It  is  the  Union  of 
All  who  Love  in  the  Service  of  All  who  Suffer."  To  serve  in  this 
Church  the  young  ministers  of  to-day  are  grappling  with  social 
science  —  a  new  study  for  theological  students.  To  serve  in 
this  Church  the  Salvation  Army,  the  King's  Daughters,  the  Chris- 
tian Endeavorers,  the  College  and  Social  Settlements,  the  Rescue 
Missions,  and  other  life-saving  bands,  are  mustering  and  multiply- 
ing. It  is  an  efflorescence  of  Service!  The  "social  conscience," 
the  "  social  consciousness," —  these  are  the  great  new  watchwords 
to-day.     And  the  new  song  is  — 

"  Love  for  every  unloved  creature, 
Lonely,  poor  or  small." 

In  the  creed  sung  in  that  song,  in  that  creed  lived  out  by  fortu- 
nate folk  homing  among  the  less  fortunate,  and  sharing  culture, 
brightness,  beauty,  happiness  with  them,  and  in  the  expanding 
ideals  of  social  justice  that  break  out  from  the  love-dreams  in 
which  they  first  come,  the  Liberal  in  religion  believes  the  final 
solution  of  social  problems  lies. 

I  have  so  far  been  speaking  of  Principles,  of  Ideals.  What 
are  likely  to  be  the  characteristic  Ideas  of  this  coming  Liberal  re- 
ligion?    Do  the  signs  begin  to  tell  that? 

I  am  sure  it  is  a  religion  that  will  hold  the  Ideals  above  the 
Ideas ;  value  spirit,  attitude,  method  in  religion  above  doctrines ; 
experience  of  religion  above  the  best  creed  or  the  most  cogently 
beautiful  ritual;  freedom  and  fellowship  and  character  and  serv- 
ice above  even  the  great  and  dear  thoughts  of  God  and  Immor- 
tality. But  will  this  coming  religion  have  a  theology  at  all? 
Indeed  it  will.  Men  are  not  yet  done  wondering  what  is  behind 
the  visible  universe,  what  is  the  nature  of  the  Power  in  which 
and  by  which  the  universe  lives,  what  we  are  in  essence  ourselves, 
whence  we  have  come,  why  we  are  here,  and  whither  we  go,  and 


84 

the  wherefore  of  all  tlie  hardness  and  the  glory  of  the  journey 
of  h'fe;  and  our  answers  to  our  own  wonders  about  these  things 
constitute  "  theologA\"  As  long  as  man  lasts,  theology  lasts.  But 
I  think  there  will  be  less  emphasis  on  all  these  questions  in  the 
coming  religion ;  at  least,  less  need  felt  of  certain  and  definite  and 
elaborate  answers.  There  will  be  a  humbler  sense  of  mystery 
in  the  coming  theology,  just  because  the  growing  recognition  is 
Unit^^  Is  the  Trinity  mystery?  Unity  —  One  in  All  and  All 
in  One  —  is  a  greater  mystery  than  One-in-Three  and  Three-in- 
One.  There  is  no  mystery  like  Unity.  There  will  be  more  con- 
tent with  the  Unknown,  though  less  of  that  presumption  of 
knowledge  that  calls  anything  Unknowable.  There  will  be  no 
conflict  between  Science  and  Faith,  but  Faith  will  look  to  Science 
for  enlargements  without,  while  Science  will  look  to  Faith  for 
deepenings  within.  There  will  be  more  of  Faith, —  not  less  of 
Faith,  but  more  of  Faith,  in  the  coming  religion  than  in  the 
most  faithful  Churches  to-day;  that  is,  a  more  simple,  happy,  all- 
day,  every-day  trust  in  the  Universe  and  in  Goodness  at  the  heart 
of  the  Universe. 

But  can  we  be  more  specific  than  this  about  the  Liberal's  the- 
ology?    Yes,  there  are  heralds  even  of  its  specific  tenets,  I  think. 

The  Soul  will  be  its  first  tenet, —  the  Soul  of  Man  as  the  seat 
of  Religion.  Everything  in  religion  will  base  on  the  Soul.  The- 
ology will  be  frankly  confessed  to  be  Psycholog>'  read  into  the 
heavens, —  the  Soul  of  Man  spelling  the  Soul  of  Nature  in  large. 

God  will  be  conceived  as  the  Immanent  Power,  the  Imma- 
nent Reason,  the  Immanent  Goodness  in  all  things.  His  name 
Law, —  Law  physical,  Law  psychical.  His  name.  Reason  In  self- 
revelation.  His  name,  Righteousness  in  tendency.  His  name, 
Love, —  Love  in  the  courses  of  the  stars,  Love  in  the  courses  of 
history.  Love  in  the  courses  of  each  little  human  and  sub-human 
life.  The  one  Living  Reality  and  Presence  and  Power  and  Help: 
joining  itself  to  all  that  does  the  will  of  the  Right,  and  conduct- 
ing each  life,  to  that  will  obedient,  into  beatitude;  frustrating, 
overcoming,  and  so  joining  itself  also  to,  all  that  does  not  do 
the  will  of  the  Right.  Personal  God,  in  the  sense  in  which 
"  Person  "  sums  up  and  names  all  such  forces  of  Reason  and 
Righteousness  as  these;   Impersonal,   for  any  who  can  call  such 


85 

forces  as  these  impersonal;  God,  the  Infinite  IVIystery  of  Exist- 
ence,—  God,  the  Best  Known  of  all  Existence  in  the  intimacies 
of  Self. 

Jesus,  however  we  rank  him  among  those  whom  he  himself 
called  his  "  brethren  "  because  they  with  him  do  that  will  of  the 
Right,  will  be  correlated  among  his  brother-prophets,  those  other 
spokesmen  for  God, —  even  as  Jews  on  the  one  hand,  Evangel- 
icals on  the  other,  are  correlating  him  to-day. 

The  Bible,  however  w^e  rank  it  among  national  scriptures,  will 
be  correlated  among  the  other  scriptures  of  man, —  records,  all, 
of  man's  search  for  the  better  and  best.  It  will  be  honored  and 
loved,  as  it  is  being  recognized,  honored  and  loved  to-day,  as  the 
spiritual  autobiography  of  a  people  gifted  with  the  apprehension  of 
righteousness  and  unit}', —  the  thousand  years'  record  of  that  peo- 
ple's mind-grow-th,  conscience-growth,  heart-grow'th,  as  it  rose 
from  its  savagery  toward  heights,  not  of  to-day's,  but  of  ancient 
civilization. 

Salvation,  though  that  word  may  not  be  used,  will  be  recog- 
nized as  synonymous  with  just  such  growths  as  these, —  growths 
in  the  individual,  growths  in  the  race, 

I  cannot  go  on :  this  will  suffice  as  a  hint  of  the  coming  Liberal 
theolog\'. 

But  one  closing  question  ought  to  be  noted  from  its  interest 
as  well  as  its  importance:  What  will  be  the  relation  of  this  com- 
ing theology  to  the  theologj'  of  the  past? 

Its  mission,  I  think,  will  be  less  to  refute  than  to  interpret  the 
faiths  of  the  past.  True  interpretation  is  at  once  justification  and 
refutation.  True  interpretation  explains  how  the  old  dogmas 
rose  in  the  minds  and  hearts  and  consciences  of  men, —  that  they 
were,  for  the  time,  the  best  translations  men  could  make  of  the 
universe  in  terms  of  ideas  and  ideals, —  that  they  were  germinal 
statements  of  truth,  germs  that  must  needs  grow  and  expand  as 
the  human  mind  grew.  So  the  story  of  a  faith  is  in  itself  its  jus- 
tification, and  in  itself  its  refutation  at  last.  Especially  will  the 
coming  Liberal  theology,  if  I  mistake  not,  be  glad  to  maintain 
that  the  old  dogmas  of  Christianity,  now  in  their  decay,  are  each 
and  all  forecasts  of  great  truths  which  the  religion  of  to-day  is 
recognizing  with  awe  and  delight;  that  those  dogmas  of  Ortho- 


86 

doxy,  framed  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  and  elaborated 
in  the  sixteenth  by  Protestantism,  are  early,  concrete,  dramatic, 
kindergarten  forms  of  the  very  truths  that  you  and  I  are  trying 
to  shape  in  vastly  enlarged  forms  before  our  own  minds  to-day. 
"  Incarnation,"  for  example,  conceived  then  as  a  single  expres- 
sion in  history,  conceived  now  as  a  Universe  Law, —  "  Evolution  " 
simply  meaning  Incarnation  Progressive.  "  Vicarious  Atone- 
ment," conceived  then  as  a  wholly  unique  and  divine  illustration 
of  sacrifice,  conceived  now  as  another  Universe  Law, —  the  law 
which  affirms  that  no  one  lives  and  no  one  dies  to  himself,  and  that 
by  this  solidarity  of  life  all  crosses  and  sufferings  and  tragedies, 
even  and  sins,  all  joys,  successes,  beatitudes  also,  work  together 
for  the  uolift  of  all.  "  Inspiration,"  then  conceived  as  a  whis- 
pered "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  "  to  a  prophet,  now  conceived  as  a 
Universe  Law  of  communion  and  influx  between  Soul  and  all 
souls.  And  so  of  the  other  Orthodox  dogmas, —  each  one  the 
germ  of  what  you  and  I  are  rejoicing  over  in  blossom. 

And  now  to  sum  up.  What  makes  a  Liberal  in  religion?  To 
hold  Freedom,  Fellowship,  Character,  Service  supreme  in  religion. 
Whoever  holds  these  suprem.e,  whether  he  call  himself  Jew, 
Roman  Catholic  or  Episcopalian,  or  Presbyterian  or  Baptist  or 
Methodist,  or  Universalist  or  Unitarian  or  Friend  —  or  anything 
else, —  he  is  a  "  Liberal  "  in  religion.  Whoever  holds  these  ideals 
supreme,  he  and  we  are  of  one  religious  fellowship.  Whoever 
loves  and  lives  these  ideals  better  than  we  is  our  teacher,  w'hatever 
Church  or  age  he  belongs  to.  Doctrines  must  needs  differ,  re- 
flecting the  difference  in  minds  —  and  better  they  should,  since 
all  minds  see  more  than  one  mind,  though  that  one  be  best. 
Names  must  need  differ,  therefore.  But  no  doctrine,  however 
true  and  important,  ranks  with  these  supreme  things.  In  these, 
and  only  in  these  things,  lies  the  hope  of  religious  unity;  and  only 
in  this  sense  is  such  unity  desirable.  On  these  four  principles, 
Freedom,  Fellowship,  Character,  and  Service  in  Religion,  as  on 
corner-stones  slowly  uprises  the  One  Catholic  Church  of  I\Ian. 


87 


WHAT   LIBERAL   RELIGION    CAN    DO    FOR    MAN'S 
HIGHER  WELLFARE  AND  HAPPINESS 

PRESIDENT   FREDERICK   W.    HAMILTON,    D.    D.,    OF    TUFT's   COLLEGE, 
MASSACHUSETTS 

The  direct  answer  to  the  question  implied  in  my  topic  can  be 
given  in  a  very  few  words.  Liberal  Religion  can  do  everything 
for  man's  higher  wellfare  and  happiness  that  any  form  of  religion 
can  and  can  do  it  in  the  best  possible  way.  If  you  would  know 
what  Judaism  has  done  for  man's  higher  wellfare  and  happiness 
you  have  only  to  read  the  thirty  centuries  and  more  of  the  His- 
tory of  Judaism.  At  every  page  you  will  see  that  the  liberal 
type  has  produced  the  finest  results  and  done  the  most  to  ad- 
vance the  cause.  If  you  would  learn  w-hat  Catholicism  can  do 
for  man's  higher  wellfare  and  happiness  turn  to  the  History  of 
the  Catholic  Church  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  again 
you  may  see  that  the  liberal  spirit  in  it  and  the  liberal  type  of  it 
have  accomplished  the  finest  results.  If  again  you  would  know 
what  Protestantism  can  do  for  man's  higher  wellfare  and  happi- 
ness you  have  only  to  consider  what  Protestantism  has  accom- 
plished since  the  days  of  Luther  and  Calvin.  Again  you  will 
see  at  every  point  that  the  vitalizing  element  which  has  produced 
the  finest  results  and  the  largest  accomplishment  has  been  the 
liberal  spirit  in  the  Churches.  Wherever  religion  is  at  work  it 
secures  the  higher  wellfare  and  happiness  of  mankind,  and  wher- 
ever this  result  has  been  secured  in  the  largest  m.easure,  the  mo- 
tive power  has  been  the  liberal  and  progressive  spirit  at  work  in 
the  various  religious  organizations. 

I  trust  I  am  making  it  clear  that  to  my  mind  the  term  "  lib- 
eral religion  "  has  no  reference  at  all  to  any  religious  body,  any 
form  of  Theolog}^  or  any  set  of  institutions.  It  is  not  what 
a  man  believes,  it  is  rather  the  way  in  which  he  believes  it.  Lib- 
eral religion  may  be  found  in  any  ecclesiastical  body,  under  any 
denominational  label,  and  within  any  ecclesiastical  institutions, 
but  not  necessarily  connected  with  any  of  these  things.  If  I  sup- 
posed it  to  be  necessarily  so  connected  I  should  have  much  less 
confidence  in  its  future  than  I  now  have.     It  is  because  I  believe 


88 

it  capable  of  working  in  all  institutions  and  through  all  forms 
of  creeds  that  I  have  supreme  confidence  in  it  for  the  future.  It 
is  the  large  and  progressive  and  tolerant  temper  of  the  man  who 
sees  that  the  truth,  simple,  central,  and  vital,  is  important,  and 
who  realizes  that  statement  of  it  is  necessarily  provisional  and 
never  vital.  It  is  the  spirit  in  religion  which  deals  with  things 
and  not  names,  with  ideas  and  not  words,  with  substance  and  not 
with  shadows. 

Being  all  of  this  it  is  the  adjusting  element  which  keeps  perma- 
nent religious  truths  in  contact  with  ever  changing  human  life. 
Truth,  if  it  were  unfortunately  identified  with  its  statement, 
would  be  as  provisional  and  as  temporary  as  they  must  neces- 
sarily be.  Religion,  if  it  were  unfortunately  identified  with  the 
religions,  could  never  be  a  permanent  force  in  human  life.  The 
records  of  human  history  are  full  of  religions  which  have  died. 
They  came  and  served  their  turn  in  aiding  human  progress.  The 
time  came  when  they  were  no  longer  capable  of  rendering  their 
service,  they  lost  their  touch  with  human  life,  they  ceased  to  be 
adjustable,  and  they  ceased  to  be  helpful.  Their  functions  ceas- 
ing they  ceased  to  exist  and  only  the  scholar  knows  their  story^ 
Religion,  however,  is  eternal. 

Only  as  recently  as  in  my  own  boyhood  we  were  told  by  trav- 
elers and  ethnologists  that  there  were  here  and  there  very  primitive 
savage  races  which  had  no  religion.  No  intelligent  traveler 
or  competent  ethnologist  would  now  make  that  statement.  It  is 
true  that  not  a  few  of  these  tribes  have  ven,'  simple  religious  be- 
liefs. They  appear  to  lack  most  of  the  intellectual  convictions 
which  to  many  persons  make  up  the  necessary  substance  of  reli- 
gion. Not  infrequently  they  have  concealed  their  religious  be- 
liefs and  practices  from  the  prying  eyes  of  the  traveler  and  the 
inquisitive  investigations  of  the  ethnologist.  It  is  not  unnatural 
that  the  difficulty  in  ascertaining  their  real  beliefs,  or  the  impossi- 
bility of  making  their  beliefs  fill  out  the  content  of  religion  as  un- 
derstood by  Christians  two  generations  ago  should  have  led  to  the 
conclusion  that  religion  was  absent  in  these  cases.  Now  we  know 
that  religion,  although  it  may  be  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  is 
never  absent. 

Religion,    as   we    know    it,    is   a   complicated    thing.     Reduced 


89 

to  its  lowest  terms  it  is  simply  the  recognition  of  intelligent  ex- 
istence behind  and  above  all  the  complicated  forms  of  existence 
with  which  we  are  in  contact.  This  recognition  is  inevitably 
associated  with  the  desire  to  put  one's  self  into  right  relations  with 
the  being  so  recognized.  The  conviction  that  one  has  succeeded 
in  doing  this  produces  feelings  of  satisfaction  and  exaltation 
amounting  in  some  cases  to  ecstasy.  Thus  considered,  the  intel- 
lectual content  of  religion  is  very  slight.  It  is  for  the  most  part 
a  sentiment.  The  mere  recognition  of  deity  is  not  intellectual, 
it  is  rather  emotional.  It  may  exist,  and  may  powerfully  mould 
the  life  of  the  individual  before  it  rises  to  definition.  It  is  the 
inevitable  reaction  of  the  untutored  mind  upon  its  environment. 
Atheism,  even  serious  doubt  is  the  product  of  civilization  rather 
than  a  survival  from  savagery. 

Students  of  religion  from  the  Christian  point  of  view  are 
sometimes  surprised  at  the  close  resemblance  between  the  reli- 
gious emotions  and  aspirations  as  they  are  exhibited  in  the  Eth- 
inic  religions  and  the  religious  emotions  and  aspirations  of  the 
Christian.  Really  there  is  no  occasion  for  surprise,  for  the  rea- 
son that  these  emotions  and  aspirations  are  not  characteristic  of 
the  religions,  but  belong  to  religion  itself.  Religion  as  a  senti- 
ment and  an  emotion  is  the  fundamental  constant  belonging  to 
all  forms  of  religion.  It  is  essentially  the  same  everywhere. 
You  find  it  in  the  savage  Arab  of  ancient  time,  devouring  the 
raw  flesh  of  the  camel  at  his  sacrificial  feast,  or  the  Indian  medi- 
cine man  communing  with  the  Great  Spirit,  or  the  Je\vish 
prophet  uttering  his  solemn  "  thus  saith  Jehovah,"  or  the  Roman 
ecclesiastic  in  his  gorgeous  vestments  offering  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass  in  some  splendid  cathedral,  or  the  Salvation  Army  lassie 
with  her  blue  bonnet  and  her  tambourine,  or  the  Protestant 
evangelist  making  his  stirring  appeal  to  his  audience,  or  the 
Friend  speaking  as  the  spirit  moves  and  feeling  the  guidance  of 
the  inner  light.  In  speech,  in  dress,  in  ceremony,  in  thought, 
these  are  as  far  apart  as  the  poles,  but  emotionally  they  are  one; 
together  they  recognize  the  life  in  which  we  live  and  move  and 
have  our  being,  together  they  strive  to  enter  into  communica- 
tion with  it,  together  they  feel  the  thrill  of  ecstasy  when  their 
effort  has  been  real  and  they  feel  that  it  has  been  successful. 


90 

This  sentiment  undergoes  two  processes.  On  the  one  hand 
it  expresses  itself  in  intellectual  forms,  and  on  the  other  it  mani- 
fests itself  in  institutions.  T!ie  savajje  feels  the  presence  of 
deity.  He  wants  to  tell  what  he  feels.  In  order  to  do  that  he 
must  think  ahout  him,  he  must  define  him,  he  must  descrihe  him. 
He  can  only  do  this  by  the  use  of  the  m.aterials  for  thoujiht  and 
speech  which  his  experience  furnishes.  He  must  evolve  his  God 
out  of  his  experience.  We  do  not  realize  fully,  unless  we  stop 
to  think  about  it,  within  what  limits  our  thinking  is  confined. 
We  know  that  w-e  speak  the  language  into  which  w-e  are  born  or 
which  is  the  common  medium  of  expression  among  those  about 
us.  We  who  are  here  to-day  do  not  speak  English  because  it 
is  the  most  scientifically  constructed,  the  most  expressive,  or  the 
most  perfect  language  spoken  by  man.  It  may  be  or  may  not 
be  these  things.  We  speak  it  because  we  were  born  or  have 
made  our  homes  in  an  English  speaking  land.  But  the  mind 
has  its  language  as  well  as  the  tongue.  We  use  the  thought 
forms  which  are  current.  We  do  not  realize  quite  as  clearly 
as  we  do  in  the  case  of  language  that  this  is  the  fact,  but  that 
it  is  a  fact  is  undeniable. 

In  one  respect  at  least  the  thought  forms  of  the  more  civilized 
nations  have  undergone  a  great  change  within  half  a  century. 
Previous  to  that  time  the  prevailing  thought  may  be  described 
as  static.  Permanence  was  considered  not  only  a  normal  but 
an  ideal  condition.  Everybody  supposed  that  forms  of  religion, 
forms  of  government,  forms  of  social  organizations,  and  the  like, 
could  be  and  ought  to  be  permanent.  All  changes  were  supposed 
to  be  in  the  direction  of  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  form 
and  only  necessitated  by  the  imperfection  of  the  form  in  use. 
That  such  a  permanent  form  was  desirable,  possible,  and  even 
probable,  nobody  seriously  questioned,  however  much  he  might 
be  dissatisfied  with  present  conditions  or  statements.  We  car- 
ried this  idea  over  into  the  hereafter,  and  looked  forvvard  to  a 
permanent  condition  of  unchanging  bliss  or  unchanging  torment 
into  which  we  should  pass  at  death.  By  and  by  Charles  Darwin 
wrote  "  The  Origin  of  Species."  As  a  scientific  text  book  that  vol- 
ume is  long  since  out  of  date,  but  as  a  product  of  human  thought 
it  marks  one  of  the  great  epochs  in  the  history  of  the  thinking  of 


91 

mankind.  Darwin  points  out  what  others  have  seen,  though  with 
less  clearness,  that  the  whole  creation  is  in  a  state  of  flux,  and 
is  constantly  becoming,  and  that  changeless  things  are  dead 
things.  Since  that  book  was  written  this  conception  has  pene- 
trated the  entire  thinking  of  mankind.  We  no  longer  think  in 
terms  of  statics,  we  think  in  terms  of  dynamics.  We  no  longer 
think  of  permanence  of  form  or  condition  as  either  possible  or 
desirable.  We  realize  that  human  institutions  as  well  as  organic 
species  are  constantly  changing,  dissolving,  melting  into  each 
other.  We  are  all  evolutionists  whether  we  know  it  or  not, 
whether  we  want  to  be  or  not,  for  the  civilized  world  thinks  now 
in   terms  of  evolution. 

We  realize  now  that  the  savage  does  not  think  of  religion  as 
we  do,  because  he  cannot.  No  more  can  we  think  as  he  does. 
The  age  thinks  as  it  must,  within  large  limits.  Ages  yet  to  come 
will  find  it  as  impossible  to  think  as  we  do,  as  we  find  it  im- 
possible to  fit  our  intellectual  operations  to  those  of  ages  long 
past.  Thus  the  gods  are  developed  out  of  the  sentiment  of  the 
divine  interpreted  in  terms  of  the  age.  In  the  savage  da^'s  when 
the  occupations  of  primitive  men  were  war  and  the  chase  his  God 
was  a  god  of  battles,  a  mighty  leader  of  the  heavenly  hosts  wor- 
shiped with  bloody  sacrifice.  In  the  agricultural  age  when  men 
occupied  themselves  with  the  peaceful  cultivation  of  the  ground 
and  supported  life  mainly  on  its  fruits,  their  god  was  the  god 
of  fertility,  the  giver  of  the  harvest,  the  spirit  of  the  corn.  When 
states  were  consolidated  under  mighty  emperors  their  gods  w^ere 
irresponsible  despots  ruling  solely  by  power  and  by  will  un- 
trammeled  by  justice  or  morality.  When  legal  considerations 
prevailed  God  was  the  supreme  judge  and  his  dealings  with  his 
creatures  took  legal  forms.  In  a  higher  and  finer  state  of  so- 
ciety than  either  of  these  God  is  worshiped  as  the  Father  or  lov- 
ing parent,  whose  nature  can  be  dimly  comprehended  through 
the  medium  of  what  is  best  in  his  children.  All  of  these  con- 
ceptions of  the  divine  grow  inevitably  out  of  the  prevailing  con- 
ditions of  human  life. 

Concurrently  with  this  intellectual  development  comes  the 
development  of  appropriate  institutions.  The  forms  of  worship, 
the  organization  of  the  worshipers,   the  temples,  altars  and  sac- 


92 

rificcs,  the  rituals,  ornaments  and  vestments,  priestly  hierarchies, 
and  ministerial  orders,  all  these  institutions  are  the  machinery 
through  which  men  are  bound  together  for  the  expression  and 
enforcement  of  their  religious  convictions.  The  same  is  true  of 
codes  of  conduct  imposed  by  the  different  religions  upon  their 
followers.  The  conventional  morality  of  any  age  is  largely  the 
product  of  the  time.  Real  morality  drives  its  roots  deep  into 
the  permanent  elements  of  life  and  of  religion,  but  every  period 
and  every  time  has  its  conventional  code  which  is  the  result  of 
history,  tradition,  and  environment. 

From  the  point  of  view  which  we  have  taken  it  is  easy  to  see 
why  some  religions  persist  through  many  centuries  and  others 
do  not.  The  life  or  death  of  a  religion  depends  upon  its  capacity 
to  separate  its  fundamental  truths  from  their  expression,  to  en- 
large its  definitions,  to  adopt  new^  statements,  to  fill  out  the  chang- 
ing outline  of  social  forms.  The  religion  of  Israel  is  among  the 
oldest  of  the  great  religions.  All  the  contemporary  religions  with 
which  it  came  into  contact  during  the  first  half  and  more  of  its 
existence  are  dead  while  it  survives  with  apparently  unimpaired 
vitality.  A  study  of  the  history  of  Israel  will  show^  that  its  truth 
had  not  been  permanently  tied  to  its  statements.  It  has  always 
had  its  orthodox  and  liberal  parties,  and  in  the  end  the  liberal 
party  has  always  prevailed.  Israel's  conception  of  God  as  set 
forth  in  the  earlier  records  of  the  Old  Testament  was  little  if 
any  superior  to  the  religious  notions  of  the  surrounding  peoples. 
As  the  centuries  passed  that  idea  was  developed  until  it  could 
satisfy  the  lofty  soul  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who  regarded  him- 
self not  as  the  founder  of  a  new  religion,  but  as  the  fulfiller  of 
an  old  one.  We  must  not  forget  that  the  Christian  Church  did 
not  leave  the  synagogue  until  it  was  compelled  to  do  so.  This 
power  of  expansion,  redefinition,  and  adjustment  has  kept  Israel 
alive.  The  lack  of  it  caused  the  religions  of  Egypt,  Assyria, 
Greece,  and  Rome  to  die  after  they  had  survived  their  useful- 
ness. 

This  lesson  of  the  past  ought  not  to  be  wasted  on  the  present. 
There  is  no  occasion  for  fear  for  the  future  of  Christianity  as  a 
whole.  Christianity  is  itself  a  liberal  movement.  "  The  sim- 
plicity that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  "  is  guarantee  of  a  power  of  adjust- 


93 

ment  which  is  not  likely  ever  to  fail.  Christianity,  however,  is 
a  thing  expressed  in  many  forms.  Each  one  of  these  forms  shows 
the  tendency,  common  to  all  religions,  to  harden ;  that  is  to  say, 
each  denomination  shows  a  tendency  to  regard  itself  as  Christian 
and  others  as  pseudo-Christian,  and  to  consider  its  own  forms 
and  statements  as  the  final  expression  of  religious  belief. 
Against  this  narrowness  struggles  the  liberal  spirit  in  all  the 
denominations,  the  spirit  which  holds  fast  to  the  great  central 
ideas,  but  welcomes  the  continual  changes  in  statement  necessary 
to  keep  these  ideas  in  vital  touch  with  human  life.  The  contin- 
ued effort  of  every  Christian  denomination  depends  upon  the  vic- 
tory of  the  liberal  element  within  its  body.  If  the  liberal  ele- 
ment conquers  there  will  be  no  sacrifice  of  truth,  but  the  truth 
will  remain  a  living  thing,  always  in  helpful  relations  with  hu- 
man life,  and  the  denomination  will  live  because  men  need  it. 
If  the  conservative  element  conquers,  truth  will  be  identified  with 
dogma,  faith  will  lose  its  touch  on  life,  the  denomination  will 
cease  to  be  helpful  and  will  die  —  as  it  should. 

WHAT  LIBERAL  RELIGION   HAS   DONE  FOR 
AMERICA 

ABSTRACT    OF    ADDRESS    BY    EDWIN"    D.    MEAD,    PRESIDENT    OF    THE 
FREE  RELIGIOUS  ASSOCIATION  OF   AMERICA 

At  the  very  beginning  of  our  history  three  liberal  principles 
of  the  greatest  moment  had  remarkable  emphasis.  The  little 
Pilgrim  congregation  which  settled  Plymouth  were  the  most 
conspicuous  representatives  in  their  time  of  the  principles  of  com- 
plete democracy  in  church  government;  Roger  Williams  was  the 
first  founder  of  a  state  upvon  the  principle  of  religious  toleration ; 
and  William  Penn  in  Pennsylvania  stood  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  inner  light  as  superior  to  all  forms  of  external  revelation 
or  authority.  It  was  inevitable  that  a  nation  which  had  such 
principles  as  these  among  its  foundation  stones  should  become 
the  greatest  temple  of  religious  liberty  which  history  has  seen. 
The  principles  had  to  encounter  all  sorts  of  opposition  and  re- 
action ;  but  they  have  steadily  gone  on  developing  and  winning 
supremacy.     The  speaker  gave   impressive  illustrations  of  coura- 


94 

geous  liberal  sentiment  all  through  the  early  period  of  New 
England  history  in  particular.  Harvard  College,  which  chose 
the  word  "  Veritas  "  for  its  seal,  was  almost  from  the  beginning 
a  cradle  of  liberal  movements  in  religion,  as  the  English  Cam- 
bridge had  been  before  it.  Protestantism,  Puritanism  and  In- 
dependency were  ail  successively  cradled  in  the  English  Cam- 
bridge; and  Harvard  came  into  the  apostolic  succession  as  con- 
cerned religious  progress.  A  century  after  its  foundation.  East- 
ern Massachusetts  was  full  of  ministers  who  represented  the  most 
liberal  sentiments  both  in  religion  and  politics, —  for  the  two 
went  hand  in  hand  in  those  old  days.  Many  of  the  leading  min- 
isters who  shaped  popular  thought  for  the  American  Revolution 
were  men  essentially  Unitarian  in  their  belief.  John  Adams 
himself  has  left  us  a  memorable  list  of  such  whom  he  knew. 
The  speaker  dwelt  especially  upon  the  noteworthy  political  and 
religious  influence  of  Jonathan  Mayhew,  and  spoke  of  his  fa- 
miliarity with  the  writings  of  Milton  and  other  advanced  Eng- 
lish thinkers.  Franklin,  Jefferson,  and  many  of  the  illustrious 
leaders  of  the  Revolution  were  men  as  radical  in  religious  as 
in  political  thought.  "  I  trust,"  said  Jefferson,  "  there  is  not 
a  young  man  now  living  who  will  not  die  a  Unitarian."  It  was 
just  as  the  Revolution  began  that  John  Murray  began  to  preach 
Universalism  in  America,  and  just  as  it  ended  that  Chauncy 
published  his  books  in  behalf  of  that  doctrine.  The  speaker  paid 
special  tribute  to  the  early  American  Baptist  congregations  as 
sources  of  many  liberal  movements.  From  among  them  came 
large  numbers  of  the  early  Universalists;  they  were  always  the 
staunch  champions  of  toleration;  and  they  were  the  most  resolute 
workers  for  the  separation  of  church  and  state  —  which  separa- 
tion did  not  come  in  Massachusetts  until  two  centuries  after  the 
founding  of  Rhode  Island. 

Channing  opened  a  new  era  in  American  religious  thought; 
and  the  speaker  showed  how  the  central  principles  for  which 
Channing  stood,  and  Emerson  and  Theodore  Parker  after  him, 
have  gradually  come  to  pervade  all  thoughtful  religious  circles. 
When  Dean  Stanley  visited  America  he  said  that  he  found 
Emerson  preaching  in  every  important  pulpit.  The  speaker  him- 
self had  recently  been  present  at  the  celebration  of  Dr.  Gordon's 


95 

twenty-five  years'  ministry  over  the  Old  South  Church  in  Bos- 
ton ;  and  a  Yale  professor  had  there  surveyed  the  changes  in  the 
theology  in  the  Congregational  Churches  during  the  quarter  cen- 
tury. They  have  brought  about,  he  said,  a  wholly  new  view  of 
the  supernatural,  of  the  Bible,  of  Jesus,  of  human  nature  and 
of  human  society.  All  of  these  changes  have  really  consisted  in 
the  coming  up  of  the  great  multitudes  of  thoughtful  men  to  the 
prophetic  views  of  Channing,  Emerson,  and  Parker ;  although 
of  course  their  influence  has  been  coincident  with  influences  from 
Germany  and  elsewhere. 

There  are  few  better  indications  of  the  vitality  of  a  religious 
movement  than  its  power  to  sing;  and  the  hymns  which  have 
sprung  from  American  liberal  religion  have  been  among  the 
noblest  of  modern  times.  The  great  American  poets  altogether 
have  belonged  to  the  household  of  liberal  religion,  and  all  the 
great  historians  as  well.  In  the  field  of  education  and  philan- 
thropy liberal  religion  has  conspicuously  proved  its  faith  by  its 
works.  It  is  doubtful  whether  any  religious  bodies  so  small  ever 
contributed  so  large  a  proportion  of  leaders  in  philanthropy  and 
reform.  The  speaker  touched  upon  the  work  of  Tuckerman, 
Dorothea  Dix,  Samuel  C.  Howe,  and  Henry  Bergh,  and  espe- 
cially upon  the  organization  of  the  peace  movement  in  America. 
From  the  tissue  of  Worcester,  Channing,  and  Sumner,  to  the 
present,  the  championship  of  international  justice  by  liberal  re- 
ligious leaders  has  nobly  attested  the  virtue  of  their  conception 
of  the  true  dignity  and  vocation  of  the  children  of  God. 

LIBERAL  RELIGION  A  POSITIVE  FAITH 

CURTIS    GOULD,    JR.,    OF    BOSTON 

By  "  liberal  religion,"  I  do  not  understand  the  acceptance  of 
any  crystallized  theological  dogma,  nor  by  those  who  profess  to 
be  liberal  religionists  do  I  understand  the  members  of  any  one 
particular  sect.  In  short  the  term  "  liberal  religion,"  as  used 
by  this  association  seems  to  me  to  be  in  a  way  misleading.  What 
we  are  really  seeking  is  not  so  much  a  liberal  religion  but  rather 
liberality  in  religion. 

The   spread    of   education    and    toleration    is   carrying   with    it 


96 

the  spirit  of  liberalism  into  all  bodies  of  devout  worshippers 
whether  Catholic  or  Protestant  or  Jew  or  Buddhist  or  Moham- 
medan. The  liberal  reliponist,  not  in  one  sect,  but  universally 
everjrwhere  is  seeking  and  finding  conviction  as  well  as  blind 
faith,  and  through  simplicity  rather  than  through  mystery.  Mere 
blind  acceptance  of  a  creed  may  be  satisfied  with  passivity,  but 
profound  and  joyous  conviction  is  to  be  won  only  by  a  religion 
of  assertion. 

Goethe,  seeking  to  define  the  spirit  of  evil,  puts  into  the  mouth 
of  Mephistopheles  the  words  "  Ich  bin  der  Geist  der  stets  ver- 
neint "  (I  am  the  spirit  that  eternally  denies).  In  that  sub- 
lime chapter  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Matthew  which  opens 
with  the  Beatitudes,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  says  of  his  mission  on 
earth,  the  very  antithesis  of  negation,  "  Think  not  that  I  am 
come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets:  I  am  not  come  to  de- 
stroy but  to   fulfil." 

Buddha,  five  centuries  before  the  first  Christmas,  had  pro- 
claimed, as  a  rule  of  life,  "  Do  not  do  unto  others  what  j'ou 
would  not  have  them  do  unto  you."  For  this  passive  behest  to 
abstain  from  evil-doing  the  Founder  of  Christianity  substituted 
the  Golden  Rule,  inculcating  activity  in  well  doing:  "All  things 
whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so 
to  them,  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets,"  an  amplification 
of  the  Mosaic  command  in  Leviticus,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself." 

In  the  sixth  book  of  the  Thoughts  of  the  Emperor  Marcus 
Aurelius  Antoninus,  it  is  set  down:  "  The  best  way  of  avenging 
thyself  is  not  to  become  like  the  wrong  doer."  This  was  the 
sober  but  negative  conclusion  of  the  soldier  emperor,  the  leader 
of  the  "  Thundering  Legion."  It  was  at  least  a  protest  against 
the  old  philosophy  of  revenge,  "  Eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth, 
hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot,  burning  for  burning,  wound  for 
wound,  stripe  for  stripe."  The  pagan  reasoning  of  the  Roman 
emperor,  like  that  of  the  Indian  philosopher,  fell  far  short  of 
the  immortal  injunction  to  action,  "  Love  your  enemies,  bless 
them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  j-ou  and  pray 
for  them  which  despitefully  use  you  and  persecute  you." 

I    have   ventured    to    make    these   comparisons   as    illustrations 


97 

of  the  superiority  of  the  active,  not  merely  to  the  negative,  but 
to  the  passive,  in  religion  as  in  all  other  human  experiences. 
The  force  of  evil  resists,  the  philosophy  of  paganism  neither  resists 
nor  promotes,  but  the  religion  that  stands  for  uplift,  hope  and 
progress  must  be  neither  negative  nor  merely  passive  but  posi- 
tively active   for  good. 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me  unfortunate  that  those  who  in 
one  place  or  another  have  sought  to  fight  the  universal  enemies, 
agnosticism  or  atheism,  by  adding  conviction  to  blind  faith 
have  emphasized  so  strongly  their  denial  of  the  creeds  of  others. 
Truth  advances  not  by  denial,  but  by  assertion.  Mere  oppo- 
sition without  suggestion,  in  religious  life  as  in  political  life,  be- 
comes first  an  object  of  anger  and  then  of  ridicule.  The  gentle- 
men who  protest  against  a  national  inheritance  tax  with  only 
more  vigor  than  they  protest  against  duties  on  tea  and  coffee, 
without  suggesting  any  means  of  revenue  by  which  the  ex- 
penses of  government  may  be  paid,  are  no  more  ridiculous  than 
those  who  declaim  against  ancient  myster}^,  creed  and  tradition, 
but  offer  no  positive  conviction  in  its  place. 

The  man  of  liberal  thought  is  often  more  genuinely  devout 
than  the  conservative,  for  his  religion,  not  merely  accepted  but 
sought  and  acquired,  differs  as  the  thing  that  is  given  differs 
from  the  thing  that  is  earned.  Socrates  suffered  martyrdom  for 
the  liberality  of  his  religious  faith,  yet  his  last  word  was  an 
appeal  for  an  act  of  devotion.  He  denounced  the  loose  stories 
attributed  by  Greek  mythology  to  the  gods  of  Olympus  as  nec- 
essarily the  inventions  of  poets,  declaring  that  beings  superior 
to  humanity  could  not  have  committed  acts  recognized  even  by 
humanity  as  sinful.  Yet,  because  he  applied  the  touchstone  of 
intelligence  to  the  mere  trappings  and  settings  of  religion,  he 
did  not  feel  himself  thereby  divorced  from  religion  itself.  On 
the  contrary,  he  felt  himself  the  more  forced  to  proclaim  a 
Supreme  Divine  authority,  whose  spirit  he  felt  in  his  own  being. 
You  will  remember  his  last  hours  were  devoted  to  an  argument 
that  death  was  not  destruction  but  development.  You  remem- 
ber also  that  he  left  behind  him  as  a  last  legacy  to  his  friends 
his  perfect  conviction  that  the  passage  from  this  life  to  another 
was  no  loss  but  a  gain. 


98 

Judged  by  exact  definition  there  is  no  more  inaccurate  term 
in  the  world  than  the  appellation  Protestant.  If  the  Protestant 
had  dene  nothing  more  than  to  protest  against  another  creed, 
Protestantism,  so-called,  would  never  have  survived.  The  re- 
bellious monk,  nailing  to  the  church  door  at  Wittenberg  the 
theses  on  which  he  was  prepared  to  defy  existing  dogma,  was  a 
splendid  instance  of  courage,  if  you  will,  but  that  act  of  protest 
alone  was  merely  destructive. 

The  Luther  who  founded  the  Lutheran  Church  was  not 
merely  an  objector.  Mere  objection  creates  no  permanent  fol- 
lowing. The  Luther  that  was  followed  was  rather  (disregard- 
ing for  the  moment  whether  he  was  right  or  wrong)  the  pro- 
claimer  of  a  positive  faith  who,  chalking  on  the  desk  before  him, 
at  Marburg,  in  his  great  debate  with  the  Swiss  theologian, 
Zwingli,  the  declaration,  "  Hoc  est  meum  corpus,"  in  which 
he  literally  did  believe,  refused  to  budge  or  compromise  even  to 
secure  a  larger  leadership.  It  was  not  in  denial  of  another's 
creed,  but  in  defence  of  his  own,  that  he  stood  up  before  the 
imperial  Diet  at  Worms  and  in  the  face  of  death  itself  declared 
"  Here  stand   I.     I  can  no  otherwise.     God  help  me.     Amen." 

Liberality  in  religion  implies  so  absolutely  the  free  toleration 
of  all  honest  convictions,  however  differing,  that  in  the  procla- 
mation of  liberality  the  assertion  of  the  more  important  half  of 
the  phrase,  religion,  is  apt  to  be  forgotten.  The  recognition  of 
the  sincerity  and  the  worth  of  another  man's  creed  is  one  of  the 
most  blessed  developments  of  modern  civilization,  provided  tol- 
eration does  not  relapse  into  indifference.  We  have  passed  the 
period  when  the  advocate  of  freedom  of  thought  needs  to  em- 
phasize what  he  does  not  believe.  We  have  almost  passed  the 
period  when,  like  Lord  Baltimore  or  Roger  Williams,  we  need 
particularly  to  iterate  and  reiterate  a  disavowal  of  personal  or 
political  antagonism  to  those  differing  from  us  in  religious  con- 
victions. If  liberal  religion  is  to  be  no  mere  misty  and  intangible 
phantom  of  an  attenuated  philosophy,  but  a  strong,  red-blooded, 
manly  faith,  its  professors  must  more  frequently  proclaim  not 
what  they  do  not  believe,  but  what  they  do  believe. 

Science  is  not  the  destroyer,  but  the  revealer  of  religion.  The 
savage  worships  blindly,  and  to  avert  personal  misfortune  sacri- 


.99 

fices  to  idols,  rocks,  trees,  serpents,  ancestors,  natural  or  super- 
natural forces,  to  anything:  that  is  or  seems  stronger  than  himself, 
from  the  sheer  desire  to  avert  personal  misfortune  from  himself. 
It  is  not  merely  a  human  but  an  animal  instinct  to  fear  what  is 
not  readily  understood.  Education  strips  the  mj^stery  from  re- 
ligion as  the  sculptor  cuts  stone  from  the  statue,  but  religion 
itself  is  as  eternal  as  the  angel  that  was  always  hidden  in  the 
heart  of  the  marble. 

The  savage  makes  gifts  to  a  Mumbo  Jumbo,  that  personal  pain 
may  be  averted,  that  personal  pleasure  may  be  obtained.  The 
civilized  man  seeks  divine  guidance  rather  than  divine  help,  he 
prays  not  for  ease  but  for  strength,  and  accepts  temporal  misfor- 
tune or  temporal  failure  with  equanimity  in  the  assured  con- 
viction that  a  Divine  Power  ever  converts  individual  evil  to 
general  good,  and  that  not  merely  the  general  good  but  true  hap- 
piness of  the  soul  comes  not  from  self  seeking  but  self  sacrifice. 

Geology,  astronomy,  biology,  history  have  done  something 
more  than  to  prove  to  us  that  dragons  once  really  did  fly  through 
the  air,  that  there  really  are  other  living  worlds  above  the  skies, 
that  animals  like  the  leviathan  did  once  swim  the  seas,  that  Ur 
of  the  Chaldees  really  was  once  a  great  metropolis  alive  with 
warehouses  and  arsenals  and  race  tracks  and  homes  and  temples. 
They  have  set  by  the  side  of  revelation  proof  and  illustration 
that  this  is  not  a  universe  of  chance  and  accident:  that  there  is 
somewhere,  somehow  a  great  First  Cause ;  that  the  strivings  of 
the  complaining  millions  of  men  do  somehow  work  together  for 
good ;  that,  viewed  through  the  perspective  glass  of  the  centu- 
ries, tyrants,  demagogues,  thieves  and  murderers  have  been  help- 
less to  prevent  the  onward  and  upward  progress  of  the  race; 
that  the  selfish  life  is  not  the  happy  life;  that  life  itself  does  not 
end  with  the  dropping  of  the  leaf  nor  the  disintegration  of  the 
body;  that  it  is  given  to  no  man  to  prevent  the  onward  progress 
of  the  universe,  but  that  a  choice  is  given  to  every  man  between 
shunning  and  seeking  cooperation  with  the  Divine  purpose  that 
is  eternal. 

To  such  certainties  of  general  religious  conviction  the  liberal 
Christian,  of  course,  would  add  his  acceptance  of  Christ  as  the 
Master   and   the    Bible   as  a   guide. 


lOO 

On  those  who  rebel  against  the  restrictions  of  the  Talmud, 
but  who  cling  to  the  teachings  of  the  Pentateuch;  on  those  who 
may  not  accept  the  proclaimed  location  of  the  coffin  of  Ma- 
homet or  the  literal  Interpretation  of  the  sword-blade  path  to 
Paradise,  but  who  embrace  and  practice  the  teachings  of  tem- 
perance and  piety  In  the  Koran ;  on  those  who  shrink  from  the 
authority  In  matters  temporal  of  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  but 
who  turn  with  no  whit  less  of  reverence  and  devotion  to  the 
inspiration  of  the  New  Testament;  on  all  of  these  Is  doubly  Im- 
posed the  duty  of  public  confession  of  reverence  and  religion,  of 
insistence  that  If  we  who  call  ourselves  liberal  In  faith  render 
to  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  we  are  even  readier  to 
render  to  God  the  things  that  are  God's. 

The  dangers  that  threaten  a  free  popular  government  come 
not  from  this  religion,  not  that  religion,  nor  from  any  religion, 
but  from  Irrellglon.  Atheism  and  Anarchy  are  sisters.  Strip 
from  man  the  sense  of  his  responsibility  to  God  and  you  dissolve 
by  the  same  act  his  sense  of  responsibility^  to  man. 

No  republic  of  Atheists  ever  has  endured.  When  the  play- 
wrights of  Athens  made  their  characters  swear  "  By  Zeus,  if  there 
is  such  a  person,"  Athens  was  ready  to  pass  beneath  the  yoke  of 
Sparta,  of  Macedonia,  of  Rome.  When  the  Roman  augurs 
chuckled  and  winked  at  each  other  as  they  passed  on  the  way 
to  ceremonies  once  sacred,  the  Republic  of  Cato  was  dead  and 
the  domination  of  the  Caesars  was  at  hand.  The  abandonment 
of  Divine  worship  for  the  adoration  of  actresses  representing  a 
Goddess  of  Reason  was  coincident  with  the  Red  Terror  that 
wrecked  the  first  French  Republic.  The  coincidence  was  no 
accident.  Even  a  blasphemous  Buonaparte  found  that  the  re- 
establishment  of  law  and  order  was  Impossible  under  a  govern- 
ment that  repudiated  the  practices  of  religion. 

To  the  doubter  of  authority  of  revelation,  historical  research 
ofifers  not  further  weakness,  but  a  buttress  of  strength.  Never 
was  there  a  more  awful  blasphemy  than  the  hideous  proverb  of 
a  century  ago:  "God  Is  on  the  side  of  the  strongest  battalions." 
That  the  whole  course  of  history  shows  the  contrary  when  the 
victory  of  the  weak  means  a  victory   for  human   betterment  is 


lOI 

the  most  convincing  testimony  that  the  guidance  of  the  universe 
IS  not   in   human  hands. 

The  Persians  were  the  conquerors  of  the  ancient  world,  the 
first  fighting  nation  of  their  day.  The  general  whom  Greece 
sent  against  them  with  her  handful  was  but  a  student  of  Per- 
sian strateg\\  The  Phoenicians,  who  supplied  the  Persian  fleet 
were  the  first  navigators  of  the  time,  more  daring  and  more 
skilful  than  any  who  sailed  the  seas  till  the  raven  banner  flew 
over  the  long  ships  of  the  Norsemen.  The  commander  of  the 
disorganized  and  mutinous  Greek  fleet  was  not  even  a  sailor. 
Yet  Marathon  and  Salamis  were  to  settle  whether  the  future 
ideals  of  Europe  were  to  be  based  upon  culture  and  democracy 
or  luxury  and  empire,  and  at  Marathon  and  Salamis  the  stronger 
battalions  went  down  before  the  little  force  whose  success  meant 
the  uplift  of  humanity. 

Hannibal  was  probably  the  ablest  military  commander  who 
ever  lived.  His  army  was  of  professional  veterans,  flushed  with 
years  of  victory  in  Sicily,  in  Spain,  in  Gaul,  in  Italy.  He  was 
opposed  in  the  long  struggle  for  Rome  by  an  amateur  in  war 
with  an  army  of  what  we  should  call  militia.  Upon  the  issue 
hung  the  future  of  free  government.  Carthage  was  the  incar- 
nation of  materialism  and  aristocracy.  Rome  stood  for  a  free 
government  by  free  men.  It  was  not  the  strongest  battalions 
nor  the  greater  general  who  won  the  ultimate  victory.  Hanni- 
bal fled  to  Africa. 

Attila,  the  Scourge  of  God,  as  he  called  himself,  purged  the 
rotting  remains  of  the  Roman  empire  as  with  fire,  but  his  was 
a  purely  destructive  force.  Something  better  than  his  yellow 
tribesmen  were  needed  for  the  basis  of  a  regenerated  Europe. 
The  army  that  faced  the  world  conqueror  from  Asia,  not  on  the 
confines  of  Europe,  but  with  its  back  to  the  Seine,  was  a  ridicu- 
lous patchwork  of  broken  forces,  part  Roman,  part  Gallic,  part 
Frank,  united  only  by  a  common  danger.  "  One  hundred  and 
sixty-five  thousand  corpses,"  says  the  Gothic  historian,  "  were 
strewed  upon  the  field  of  battle,"  but  there,  too,  victory  was  not 
with  the  strongest  battalions.     Attila  fled. 

Mahomet  rose  upon   the  wreck  of  degenerate  pagan   and   de- 


102 

generate  Christian  peoples.  The  Saracen  armies  swept  a  puri- 
fying path  through  Arabia,  Egj'pt,  all  Northern  Africa.  They 
crossed  into  Spain  and  transformed  one  of  the  pillars  of  Her- 
cules, Gibraltar  (Gebel  Tarik,  the  rock  of  Tarik)  into  an 
eternal  monument  to  their  commander.  The  degenerate  Gothic 
kingdom  of  Spain  fell,  and  Roderick,  its  last  chief,  vanished. 

The  country  we  now  call  France  did  not  exist.  There  was 
instead  merely  a  battleground  where  Teutonic  tribes,  warring 
among  themselves,  alike  ruthlessly  massacred  the  peace-loving 
sons  of  the  once  ferocious  Gaul  and  of  the  warrior  Roman. 
The  victorious  Saracen  wave  swept  nearly  to  the  walls  of 
Tours.  It  was  faced  by  Charles  Martel,  of  the  little  kingdom 
of  Austrasia  and  his  Frankish  followers.  Yet  the  mighty  flood 
of  invasion  halted,  scattered  into  spray  and  ebbed  slowly  back 
beyond    the    Mediterranean. 

The  Christian  home,  not  the  Moslem  harem,  was  to  be  the 
basis  of  civilization  in  the  West.  The  strongest  battalions  had 
been  the  strongest  w^hen  faced  with  idolatry  and  degeneracy. 
They  collapsed  at  the  touch  of  a  Northern  power,  weak  in  or- 
ganization but  more  potential  for  human  uplift  than  the  fanati- 
cism of  Islam. 

The  little  fleet  of  Drake  and  the  Invincible  Armada;  the 
ragged  Continentals  from  thirteen  squabbling  provinces,  and  the 
disciplined  veterans  of  England  and  Germany;  the  barefooted, 
starving  soldiers  of  republican  France,  fighting  single-handed 
against  the  allied  kings  and  emperors  of  Europe  —  it  is  not 
necessary  to  multiply  instances  of  defeat  of  the  stronger  by  the 
weaker  battalions,  to  show  the  illuminating  evidence  of  the  ex- 
istence of  God  shining  from  the  history  of  man. 

This  is  an  age  of  toleration,  an  age  when  men  are  seeking 
not  unessentials  of  dogma  that  they  may  differ,  but  essentials  of 
faith  that  they  may  agree.  Like  all  strong  nations  we  are  of 
various  races.  Like  all  wise  nations  we  are  learning  to  bear 
with  one  another's  opinions.  Unless,  however,  we  would  go  to 
the  wall  with  the  weaklings  we  must  have  some  opinions.  That 
we  are  free  to  think  does  not  imply  that  we  are  freed  from 
thinking. 

We  are  likely  to  see  in  our  time  neither  a  universal  language 


I03 

nor  a  universal  religion,  but  world  congress  after  world  congress 
for  the  promotion  of  the  world's  industry',  the  world's  comfort, 
the  world's  health,  the  world's  peace.  These  are  bringing  in  their 
train  at  least  the  quickening  sense  that  in  reverent  and  universal 
acquiescence  in  the  fatherhood  of  God  is  included  the  ever  in- 
creasing recognition  of  the  brotherhood  of  man.  Honest  and 
sincere  communicants  of  all  forms  of  faith  can  at  least  join  in 
the  moral  code  of  human  action  set  down  by  our  venerable  St. 
Paul  of  New  England,  Edward  Everett  Hale: 

"Look  forward,  not  back;  look  out,  not  in;  look  up,  not 
down,  and  lend  a  hand." 

THE  OBLIGATIONS  AND  OPPORTUNITIES  OF  RE- 
LIGIOUS LIBERALISM  IN  AMERICA  TO-DAY 

REV-    FREDERIC    W.    PERKINS,    D.D.,    OF    LYNN,    MASS. 

Religious  liberalism  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  religion 
trusting  itself  to  the  free  spirit  for  validation  and  usefulness. 
It  is  a  supreme  faith  in  God  voiced  in  the  self-reliant  conviction 
that  the  highest  and  best  in  one's  nature  will  lead  him  to  God; 
a  faith  in  man  expressed  in  the  conviction  that  in  man's  dis- 
ciplined reason  and  instructed  conscience  God's  voice  has 
spoken ;  a  faith  in  the  primacy  of  the  spiritual  instincts  as  the 
witnesses,  in  the  world  of  the  seen  and  temporal,  of  the  perpet- 
ual encompassing  presence  of  the  world  of  the  unseen  and  eter- 
nal. We  are  to  understand  that  in  this  address,  as  in  this  en- 
tire conference,  we  are  thinking  about  a  certain  type  of  Religion 
incidentally  denominated  liberal,  rather  than  about  a  certain  type 
of    Liberalism    incidentally    denominated    religious. 

It  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  the  most  obvious  exhibitions  of 
the  spirit  of  liberal  religion  have  been  given  by  its  struggles 
against  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical  bondage.  We  arc  never  so 
conscious  of  the  power  of  a  stream  as  when  we  try  to  obstruct 
it.  The  medicinal  and  re-creative  forces  of  the  human  body 
are  never  so  apparent  as  in  the  event  of  disease.  We  are  never 
so  conscious  of  our  birthright  as  free-born  children  of  the  Hea- 
venly Father's  household  as  when  some  one  treats  us  as  bonds- 
men.    But  this  is  rather  the  pathology  of  liberal   religion,  and 


104 

pathological  stiuiies,  valuable  incidentallj^  may  easily  lead  to  a 
distorted  view  of  the  primary  purpose  of  the  living  fact  studied. 
Disease  may  become  more  interesting  than  health.  A  surgeon, 
one  sometimes  suspects,  is  quite  as  much  interested  in  a  man's 
vitality  when  it  is  knitting  together  a  broken  leg  as  when  it  is 
enabling  the  man  to  walk  easily  and  tirelessly  down  the  road. 
Whatever  our  interest  in  the  dramatic  struggle  of  religion  to 
gain  freedom,  a  struggle  by  no  means  finished,  our  primary  and 
overmastering  interest  is  in  the  larger  service  religion  may  ren- 
der in  the  wider  freedom  it  has  achieved. 

The  program  of  this  conference  provides  for  very  complete 
consideration  of  the  practical  expressions  of  religious  liberalism 
in  our  varied  personal  and  associated  life.  In  its  bearing  on  sci- 
ence and  theology,  on  the  church,  the  Bible,  and  the  Christ,  on 
social  service  and  political  reform,  its  obligations  and  opportuni- 
ties will  be  specifically  set  forth.  The  purpose  of  this  address, 
therefore,  may  properly  be  more  comprehensive  and  theoretical. 
Broadly  considered,  the  obligation  and  opportunity  of  liberal  re- 
ligion in  America  to-day  is  to  exemplify  the  union  that  ought 
to  exist  between  spiritual  breadth  and  catholicity,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  depth  and  tenacity  of  religious  conviction  on  the  other. 

It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  sharply  defined,  contentiously  ar- 
gued, aggressively  championed  convictions  do  not  play  so  large 
a  part  in  religious  life  to-day  as  they  did  formerly.  One  of  the 
first  results  of  the  spread  of  the  liberal  spirit  has  been  to  lower 
their  long-time  commanding  prestige.  Even  in  churches  not  re- 
garded as  liberal  the  distinctively  theological  interest  no  longer 
predominates.  It  is  not  so  much  that  doctrines  are  denied  or 
but  waveringly  affirmed ;  they  are  not  regarded  as  of  sufficient 
interest  to  be  even  considered.  The  ruling  interest  in  religion 
to-day  is  not  theological  but  biological.  If  people  think  of  re- 
ligious doctrine  at  all  it  is  as  a  principle  incidentally  involved 
in  righteous  living.  God  is  a  postulate  of  the  good  life,  not  a 
theological  proposition.  Unquestionably  He  ought  to  be  that 
primarily;  it  is  a  question,  however,  whether  religion  will  not 
suffer  if  He  is  only  that,  if  He  never  receives  the  assent  of  the 
constructive  intellect  as  well  as  the  consent  of  the  obedient  will. 
But  preferences  aside,  the  disparagement  of  religious  conviction 


105 

is  a  pervasive  fact.  Many  people  would  accept  as  the  distinc- 
tive shibboleth  of  liberal  religion  the  declaration,  "  Religion  is 
life;  if  you  live  right,  it  makes  no  difference  what  you  believe." 

If  that  is  true,  it  may  be  said  in  passing,  religion  is  a  marked 
exception  to  every  other  region  of  human  activity;  everywhere 
else  it  makes  a  quite  decided  difference  what  one  believes  and 
whether  he  believes  it  with  all  his  heart.  A  few  months  back,  the 
United  States  was  a  vast  forum  in  which  many  ardent  and  in- 
dustrious men  were  endeavoring  to  persuade  their  fellow  citi- 
zens that  J\lr.  Taft  or  Mr.  Bryan  was  the  better  man  for  Presi- 
dent. Those  political  workers  entertained  a  shrewd  suspicion 
that  a  man's  belief  on  that  question  would  have  something  to  do 
with  the  way  he  would  vote.  Yet  we  all  instinctively  respond 
to  the  sentiment  behind  the  familiar  statement  as  to  religion,  and 
if  we  are  to  suggest  any  amendment  of  it  we  must  first  appre- 
ciate the  mood   it  voices. 

For  one  thing,  it  voices  a  legitimate  protest  against  the  dog- 
matic intolerance  which  has  traditionally  accompanied  intensity 
of  religious  conviction.  The  dogmatic  temper  has  com.e  to  be 
synonymous  with  the  intolerant  temper.  It  has  been  divisive, 
whereas  the  best  people  to-day  are  seeking  agreements.  It  has 
been  intellectually  arrogant,  whereas  the  best  minds  are  intel- 
lectually modest  and  teachable. 

"  For  much  of  the  agnosticism  of  the  age  the  gnosticism  of 
the  theologians  is  responsible."  The  bewildering  increase  of 
knowledge  has  made  men  cautious  and  reserved  in  statements 
of  belief.  The  man  of  strong  convictions  is  apt  to  lack  a  sense 
of  spiritual  proportion  and  to  hold  essentials  and  non-essentials 
WMth  like  uncompromising  intensity.  The  liberal  is  repelled  by 
this  disposition  to  link  together  confident  trust  in  great  spiritual 
fundamentals  with  dogmatic  affirmation  in  regions  of  thought 
where  dogmatism  is  especially  improper  and  absurd.  He  is  apt 
to  regard  this  tendency  to  mere  partisanship  and  bigotry  as  an 
incurable  disease  of  the  strongly  believing  temper,  and  therefore, 
in  order  to  insure  freedom  and  breadth,  he  is  averse  to  the  self- 
committal  and  the  thrill  of  allegiance  which  the  ardent  believer 
knows  and  craves.  He  will  not  let  himself  go  lest  he  find  it 
hard  to  get  himself  back! 


io6 

For  another  thing,  the  popular  dictum  that  religion  is  life 
and  it  makes  no  difference  what  you  believe  states  a  basal  truth 
so  important  that  one  may  pardon  the  fallacious  inference  drawn 
from  it.  Religion  is  life.  It  is  only  secondarily  a  formulated 
set  of  ideas.  The  only  religious  value  of  any  belief  is  its  life- 
value. 

If  a  belief  has  no  life-value,  if  it  does  not  spontaneously  trans- 
mute itself  into  conduct,  it  is  no  essential  element  of  religion. 
Even  life-giving  beliefs  may  be  held  in  a  lifeless  way,  as  a  creed 
rather  than  a  faith.  Your  creed  is  what  you  assent  to  with 
your  head ;  your  faith  is  what  you  give  allegiance  to  with  your 
heart  and  will.  One  may  believe  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  the 
brotherhood  of  man,  the  spiritual  primacy  of  Jesus,  the  final 
victory  of  good  over  evil,  as  articles  of  a  creed,  yet  have  precious 
little  faith  in  them  as  principles  of  life.  And  when  a  man  of 
faith  appears,  we  are  influenced  more  by  the  contagion  of  his 
life  than  by  the  logic  of  his  beliefs.  So  was  it  with  Jesus.  The 
pages  of  the  gospels  have  no  suggestion  of  the  traditional  theo- 
logical treatise.  It  is  an  almost  complete  change  of  spiritual 
climate  which  one  experiences  in  passing  from  the  one  to  the  other. 
Jesus  was  indeed  a  mighty  believer  in  God  and  man  and  invin- 
cible goodness,  but  all  his  talk  is  of  life,  and  you  are  aware  of 
the  heart-throbs  of  his  mighty  beliefs  only  as  you  are  aware  of 
the  throbbing  dynamo  in  the  light  that  floods  the  room.  The 
popular  verdict  of  religious  liberalism  is  sound  that  religion  is 
life;  and  so  completely  does  vital  religion  absorb  its  involved 
beliefs  into  the  very  structure  of  its  being  that  the  beliefs  may 
easily  seem  to  be  unimportant  and  negligible  factors  in  the  re- 
sult. 

We  recognize,  then,  this  disposition  to  minimize  the  impor- 
tance of  clearly  formulated  convictions  as  one  of  the  marked 
tendencies  in  religious  liberalism.  The  purpose  is  on  all  sides 
apparent  to  find  a  basis  which  may  simply  ignore  intellectual 
conditions  of  fellowship.  For  example,  there  is  John  Hunter's 
great  church  in  Glasgow,  which  would  fellowship,  according  to 
to  its  covenant,  "  all  who  are  sincerely  seeking  and  striving  to 
do  the  will  of  God,  and  have  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  sufficient  to 
be  disciples  in  his  school,   followers  in  his  footsteps,  and  sharers 


I07 

in  his  work."  From  Glasgow  also  comes  this  declaration  of 
Prof.  James  Denny  as  a  sufficient  basis  for  Christian  union :  "  I 
believe  in  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  Son,  our  Lord 
and  Saviour."  To  be  sure,  the  inclusive  temper  of  this  state- 
ment appears  less  obvious  after  reading  a  semi-official  interpre- 
tation of  the  phraseology,  which,  we  are  assured,  will  exclude 
the  heretic  as  effectively  as  it  will  include  the  believer;  but  the 
change  of  emphasis  from  the  letter  to  the  spirit  is  evident.  The 
covenant  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  Dartmouth  College  reads: 
"  I  determine  to  be  a  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ  and  to  do  the 
will  of  God  as  revealed  through  him,"  Even  more  untheolog- 
ical  in  temper  is  the  recent  declaration  of  Dr.  Vernon  before 
the  council  called  to  advise  Harvard  Congregational  Church  in 
Brookline  concerning  his  settlement:  "I  believe  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  That,  either  by  expression  or  implication,  contains 
everything  I  regard  as  vital  to  the  highest  conceivable  manhood." 
He  furthermore  refused  to  accept,  as  a  classifying  label,  the  name 
of  either  Trinitarian  or  Unitarian,  apparently  on  the  ground  that 
the  implied  theological  distinction  has  become  obsolete. 

We  are  not  called  upon  to  discuss  or  approve  these  statements; 
their  significance,  however,  is  unmistakable.  Their  ruling  in- 
terest is  practical,  not  theoretical ;  life,  not  creed.  They  would 
unite  men  in  a  common  service  and  fuse  them  by  a  common  spir- 
itual loyalty.  They  all  breathe  the  spirit  of  the  teacher  and 
leader  of  Christians,  who  would  accept  no  adoring  ascription 
of  Lord,  Lord,  from  those  who  lack  purpose  to  do  the  will  of 
the  Father  in  heaven ;  and  in  that  challenge  to  his  followers 
Jesus  but  enforces  anew  Israel's  standard  of  religion,  "  What 
doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  love  mercy, 
and  walk  humbly  before  God  ?  " 

Broad  and  catholic  as  such  a  non-theological  fellowship  is,  how- 
ever, liberal  religion  is  confronted  with  a  deeper  obligation  and 
a  larger  opportunity.  So  far  as  these  inclusive  declarations  of 
spiritual  loyalty  and  moral  purpose  express  a  unity  of  spirit  and 
a  bond  of  peace  comprehending  wide  varieties  of  thought,  that 
far  they  mark  a  permanent  gain  in  true  liberality.  So  far, 
however,  as  they  imply  that  men  can  preserve  unity  and  keep 
the  religious  peace  only  by  ceasing  to  think  and   to  affirm  can- 


io8 

didly  the  divergent  results  of  their  thinking,  that  far  they  do  not 
mark  any  permanent  advance.  That  the  present-day  disparage- 
ment of  theology  in  the  supposed  interests  of  catholicity 
does  often  mean  that,  no  man  can  deny.  Referring  to  a  certain 
conference  of  students  from  several  theological  schools,  a  pene- 
trating observer  of  modern  religious  conditions  recently  said: 
"  The  program  w^as  rich  in  suggestions,  both  for  the  conduct 
of  the  devout  life  and  for  the  direction  of  practical  service,  but 
throughout  the  session  not  one  word  was  spoken  either  by  old 
or  young  which  concerned  the  minister  as  a  thinker,  or  the  du- 
ties of  theological  students  as  students  of  theology.  Feeling  and 
action  had  crowded  out  of  the  foreground  of  interest  the 
function  of  thought.  Piety  and  efficiency  seemed  sufficient  sub- 
stitutes for  intellectual  power.  The  passion  for  service  had 
supplanted  the  passion  for  truth."  And  Dr.  Peabody  goes  on 
to  assert:  "  Not  less  of  religious  fervor  and  not  less  of  practical 
activity  are  demanded  of  the  representatives  of  religion,  but  a 
new  accession  of  intellectual  power,  the  capacity  to  translate 
the  message  of  the  Timeless  into  the  dialect  of  the  present  age. 
.  .  .  The  future  of  organized  religion  will  depend,  not  alone 
on  new  expressions  of  piety  and  new  enlistments  for  service,  but 
—  in  an  unprecedented  degree  —  on  a  revival,  among  those  who 
represent  religion,  of  intellectual  authority  and  leadership." 

For  be  it  remembered  that  if  men  think  at  all  they  will  think 
about  religion,  and  the  more  profoundly  the  spiritual  deeps  are 
stirred  the  more  compelling  will  be  the  intellectual  interest  in 
the  eternal  facts  with  which  religion  deals.  Men  wearied  by 
unspiritual  intellectualism  or  theological  controversy  may  be 
content  for  a  time  with  the  repose  of  unaggressive  piety  or  the 
healing  bath  of  social  service.  But  sooner  or  later  their  re- 
freshed intellects  will  respond  to  the  mental  challenge  of  re- 
ligion and  they  will  form  intellectual  convictions.  What  is  the 
nature  and  purpose  of  God?  Men  will  seek  to  answer  that 
question,  to  "  think  God's  thoughts  after  Him,"  even  though 
the  answer  is  as  elusive  as  the  question  is  persistent;  and  the  abid- 
ing conviction  will  powerfully  affect  the  way  in  which  they  will 
serve  Him  and  serve  their  fellow-men.  What  is  the  place  of 
Jesus  in   the  religious  leadership  of  the  world?     No  man's  an- 


109 

swer  to  that  question  can  be  whollj^  without  influence  on  the 
power  of  command  which  one  or  another  of  Jesus'  teachings 
or  phases  of  his  life  will  take  on.  Why  are  sin  and  sickness  and 
sorrow  cursing  human  existence?  All  about  us  are  thousands  of 
people  who  witness  to  the  soul's  response  to  any  answer  which 
will  dispel  the  fear  and  lift  the  burden.  And  no  thoughtful  man 
who  shares  our  mortal  life  with  its  broken  purposes  and  frus- 
trated hopes,  its  ideals  of  perfection  mocked  by  frail  and  fee- 
ble accomplishment,  its  subtle  and  persistent  intimations  of  an 
eternal  world  encompassing  the  things  of  time,  can  fail  to  ask, 
Whither?  and  to  ponder  the  question  of  destiny.  In  the  power 
of  convictions,  partly  his  own,  partly  of  his  fathers,  partly  of  the 
community  in  which  he  dwells,  man  will  live  his  religious  life. 
Doubtless  the  roots  of  one's  religion  are  in  the  instincts  of  his 
sentiments  and  the  impulses  of  his  will,  but  their  final  sanction 
and  direction  are  in  the  reasoned  convictions  of  his  intellect; 
and  if  his  religion  is  to  be  regal  and  commanding  in  his  life,  it 
must  formulate  itself  into  positive  intellectual  convictions  that 
grip  his  soul  with  tenacity  and  power. 

But  how,  now,  are  we  to  prevent  such  positive  convictions, 
with  their  inevitable  divergences,  from  breaking  the  spiritual 
peace,  as  they  have  generally  succeeded  in  doing?  Simply  by 
refusing  to  make  them  tests  of  spiritual  fellowship.  Dogmatism 
is  an  excellent  qualit}'  when  it  prescribes  a  channel  of  loj'al  serv- 
ice for  one's  self;  it  is  a  harmful  quality  when  it  erects  a  stand- 
ard of  fellowship  and  confidence  towards  one's  neighbor.  The 
creedal  differences  of  the  past  degenerated  into  unspiritual  intel- 
lectualism  and  dogmatic  intolerance  not  because  men  believed 
strongly,  but  because  they  forgot  that  the  final  justification  of 
their  beliefs  was  to  be  found  in  their  power  to  inspire  and  direct 
the  common  task  of  serving  God  as  loyal  sons  and  serving  men 
as  loving  brothers.  Participation  in  that  common  task  is  the  test 
of  fellowship,  and  the  convictions  of  an  individual  or  a  church 
are  to  be  held  not  as  the  articles  of  a  standard  creed  but  as  the 
working  principles  of  a  righteous  life.  Within  the  fraternal  cir- 
cle of  the  fellowship  of  spirit  and  moral  purpose  such  convictions, 
openly  declared  and  varying  as  they  may,  are  to  have  free  sway, 
to  survive,  as  they  severally  meet  the  tests  of  truth  and  serviceable- 


no 

ness.  They  may  divide  men  into  churches  or  into  groups  within 
churches;  but  they  will  not  divide  the  larger  brotherhood  of  those 
who  seek  to  do  the  will  of  God. 

Who,  for  example,  is  the  liberal  Christian?  He  may  be  one 
to  whom  Jesus  appeals  by  his  power  to  embody  God  and  to  make 
Him  more  effectually  a  present  influence  in  his  world.  To  such 
a  one  the  pre-eminent  fact  about  Christ  is  that  he  has,  as  a  matter 
of  spiritual  experience,  brought  God  out  from  his  remote,  inac- 
cessible abode,  translated  Him  into  terms  of  human  excellence 
and  fellowship,  and  made  Him  a  resident  of  this  world  of  human 
struggle.  Jesus  is  to  him  the  supreme  revelation  of  the  Human- 
ity of  God.  To  another  Jesus  especially  appeals  as  the  unique 
revelation  of  the  Divinity  of  man.  He  is  the  ideal  of  humanity 
made  real,  the  dream  of  humanity  come  true.  He  is  the  man 
that  one  ought  to  be  speaking  to  the  man  that  one  actually  is. 
To  3^et  another,  Jesus  appeals  as  the  teacher  of  spiritual  truth. 
Such  a  one  is  but  feebly  interested  in  the  implications  of  Jesus' 
life,  Godward  or  manhood,  but  he  is  strongly  interested  in  what 
he  taught.  Which  is  the  liberal  Christian?  None  of  them,  if 
their  primary  interests  are  in  these  various  aspects  of  Christ's  life. 
All  of  them,  if  their  primary  interest  in  the  work  which  Christ 
came  to  do  —  to  set  up  the  kingdom,  to  enthrone  love,  to  establish 
righteousness,  to  make  co-operation  and  service  the  settled  habit 
of  men.  Those  who  magnify  the  fellowship  of  that  common 
task  will  not  disparage  the  mighty  convictions  which  have  up- 
lifted the  hearts  and  fortified  the  purposes  of  their  fellow-workers. 
They  will  not  empty  spiritual  fellowship  of  the  enrichment  of 
a  varied  intellectual  expression  and  thin  it  down  to  the  few  con- 
victions which  may  obtain  universal  acceptance.  Rather  will  they 
find  in  varying  convictions,  because  of  the  very  strength  and  seri- 
ousness with  which  men  hold  them,  not  walls  of  exclusion  but 
avenues  of  approach.  Taught  by  the  broad  fellowship  of  a  com- 
mon service,  each  shall  hear  in  his  neighbor's  conviction  a  dialect 
of  a  common  speech ;  Parthians,  Medes,  and  Elamites,  each  shall 
hear  the  other  speaking  in  his  own  tongue  the  wonderful  works 
of  God. 

And  the  same  principle  reaches  more  widely.  Does  the  Jew 
find   in   the  teachings  of  the  prophets,  which  Jesus  appropriated 


Ill 

with  such  spiritual  masterfulness,  a  sufficient  leadership?  We  to 
whom  Jesus  stands  in  spiritual  primacy  are  false  to  him  if  we 
refuse  fellowship  to  those  who  are  loyal  to  his  God  and  service- 
able in  his  cause,  but  who  do  not  find  it  helpful  to  bear  his 
name.  Our  discipleship  shall  profit  us  nothing;  if  it  fail  to  edu- 
cate us  into  fellowship  with  whoever  strives  to  do  the  will  of 
God  in  moral  obedience  and  brotherly  love. 

This,  then,  is  the  comprehensive  obligation  resting  on  liberal 
religion  to-day  —  to  exemplify  the  union  that  ought  to  exist  be- 
tween spiritual  breadth  and  catholicity,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
depth  and  tenacity  of  even  divergent  convictions  on  the  other. 
And  as  that  primary  obligation  is  gladly  fulfilled,  a  greater  and 
more  permanent  result  will  follow,  viz.,  the  deepening  of  loyalty 
to  the  few  simple,  fundamental  spiritual  faiths  that  underlie 
moral  health  and  social  progress.  It  is  in  its  power  to  deepen 
that  loyalty  that  liberal  religion  finds  its  permanent  justification. 
Spiritual  freedom,  precious  as  it  is,  well  worth  all  the  heroic 
struggle  it  has  cost,  is  yet  only  a  means  to  an  end.  The  end  is 
loyalty  to  the  truth  which  freedom  may  disclose.  And  the  fact 
which  makes  freedom  so  precious  is  that  it  is  the  indispensable 
condition  of  attaining  to  the  largest  measure  of  truth  and  of 
arousing  the  most  enduring  and  militant  loyalty.  Failing  to 
issue  in  that  it  is  but  moral  luxuriousness  and  spiritual  sterility. 
In  the  realm  of  religion  one's  primary  concern  with  truth  is  its 
capacity  for  being  transmuted  into  power.  Given  that  construc- 
tive interest  in  the  truth  as  primary,  given  spiritual  freedom  as  the 
best  condition  of  its  finest  expression,  then  one's  temper  will  be 
neither  that  of  the  dogmatist,  with  his  exclusive  finalities,  nor 
that  of  the  timid  experimentalist,  fearful  lest  loyalty  to  the  past 
and  the  present  will  dull  his  vision  of  the  future.  It  will  be 
that  of  one  who  realizes  that  his  devoutly  formulated  convictions 
are  but  his  efforts  to  testify  to  the  reality  of  the  world  of  spiritual 
forces  which  express  God  at  work.  In  fellowship  with  these 
forces  he  would  abide.  In  loyalty  to  their  eternal  purposes  he 
would  live.  No  man  can  formulate  them  adequately  to  himself. 
No  man  may  assume  to  formulate  them  authoritatively  for  his 
neighbor.  But,  however  they  may  be  formulated,  they  will  be 
represented  by  the  power  of  a  few  simple  convictions  that  will 


112 

determine  one's  attitude  to  life.  That  attitude  assumes  that  \vc 
are  ever  encompassed  b}?^  the  deathless  love  of  the  Livine  God, 
who  neither  slumbers  nor  sleeps ;  that  not  only  God  is  Love,  but 
Love  is  God.  It  assumes  that  in  our  individual  lives  are  unutil- 
ized reservoirs-  of  spiritual  power  which,  if  unsealed,  will  bring 
God  in  as  a  healing  flood.  It  assumes  that  we  are  part  of  an 
unbreakable  human  brotherhood,  that  success  means  to  serve  it 
and  failure  means  to  betray  it.  In  this  social  order  the  only  infi- 
delity to  God  is  infidelity  to  man,  the  only  heresy  is  exploiting 
the  public  good  for  private  gain.  This  attitude  assumes  that 
God  and  his  righteousness  are  invincible,  that  good  can  win  over 
evil,  and  that  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  justice  and  service  is 
the  justice  of  a  winning  cause,  not  of  a  forlorn  hope. 

It  is  that  vital,  underlying  faith,  the  finest  product  of  the  spirit 
of  liberal  religion,  which  is  so  superbly  voiced  in  Emerson's  lines: 

"  Stainless   soldier  on  the  walls, 

Knowing  this,  and  knows  no  more, 
Whoever  fights,  whoever   falls, 

Justice  conquers  evermore  — 

Justice  after  as  before. 
And  he  who  battles  on  her  side, 

God,  though  he  were  ten  times  slain, 
Crowns  him  victor,  glorified, 

Victor  over  death  and  pain." 

THE  RELATION  OF  LIBERAL  RELIGION  TO  FOR- 
EIGN MISSIONS 

ALBERT    BOWEN,    PHILADELPHL\ 

I  have  been  asked  to  present  the  problem  which  the  appeal  of 
foreign  missions  brings  before  the  student  with  liberal  religious 
views.  I  think  I  am  justified  in  saying  that  foreign  missionary 
work  does  appeal  to  a  liberal  student.  If  a  student  stops  to 
think  out  religious  problems  he  becomes  more  or  less  of  a  free 
thinker.  He  arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  a  man  is  a  man  no 
matter  what  he  happens  to  think  about  certain  doctrines.  Service 
is  seen  to  be  the  great  purpose  of  life.  This  fact  is  demonstrated 
in  the  college  Christian  Associations,  where  men  of  all  denomi- 
nations join  in  the  settlement  and  other  practical  work,  because 


113 

the  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  narrow  as  its  basis  is,  presents  to  the  student 
an  opportunity  for  religious  service. 

From  every  side  comes  the  call  to  service.  It  is  the  secret  of 
philosophy  and  the  duty  demonstrated  by  ethics.  Professors  and 
ministers  constantly  preach  it;  and  most  effective  of  all  men,  the 
finest  type  of  college  men,  are  every  day  going  forth  to  live  the 
life  of  service.  It  is  in  the  college  atmosphere  in  spite  of  this  age 
of  commercial  attractions. 

Twenty  years  ago  certain  students  who  were  preparing  them- 
selves for  foreign  missionary  service  in  some  of  the  Eastern  col- 
leges came  together  and  organized  the  Student  Volunteer  Move- 
ment for  Foreign  Missions.  The  purpose  of  this  movement  is  to 
awaken  and  maintain  among  students  an  intelligent  and  active  in- 
terest in  foreign  missions;  to  enroll  properly  qualified  student 
volunteers  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  mission  boards;  to  help 
prepare  such  students  for  their  life  work ;  and  to  use  at  home  vol- 
unteers who  are  not  able  to  go  to  the  front.  Student  volunteers 
are  drawn  from  the  institutions  of  higher  learning  in  the  United 
States  and  Canada.  Each  volunteer  signs  the  declaration  of  the 
movement,  which  is  as  follows:  "  It  is  my  purpose,  if  God  per- 
mit, to  become  a  foreign  missionary."  Three  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  sixty-one  volunteers  have  been  sent  out  to  foreign 
fields  of  service. 

True  to  its  purpose  this  movement  carries  on  an  active  educa- 
tional campaign  in  almost  i,ooo  institutions  and  is  awakening  an 
ever  widening  interest.  Twenty-five  thousand  students  are  learn- 
ing of  the  conditions  and  needs  of  their  less  fortunate  brethren  in 
foreign  lands  through  the  literature  and  speakers  of  the  Student 
Volunteer  Movement  and  are  contributing  liberally  to  the  work 
which  is  being  carried  on. 

Through  this  student  agency  it  often  happens  that  other  stu- 
dents decide  to  make  active  social  service  their  life  work,  and  upon 
investigation  decide  that  in  foreign  missionar};-  work  lies  the  great- 
est need  and  widest  opportunity  for  life  investment. 

The  methods  of  interesting  students  are  varied  but  are  edu- 
cational rather  than  an  appeal  to  proselyte.  Knowledge  of  con- 
ditions assures  interest.  Comparisons  are  drawn  between  condi- 
tions in  China  and  in  America.     (I  speak  of  China  because  it  is 


114 

the  centre  of  missionary  activity.)  The  ignorance  that  prevails, 
the  brightness  and  desire  to  learn  on  the  part  of  the  people,  and 
the  paucity  of  teachers  appeal  to  men.  The  great  humanitarian 
service,  the  charm  and  gratitude  of  the  people,  the  heroic  lives  of 
men  working  there,  together  with  the  results  brought  about,  stir 
the  hearts  of  all  who  study  conditions  in  China.  The  joy  of 
service  and  of  being  loved,  of  doing  what  otherwise  would  not  be 
done,  the  possibility  of  restoring  sight  and  health  to  thousands 
who  must  spend  their  days  in  darkness  and  die  for  want  of  what 
any  doctor  can  give,  these  and  many  other  attractions  appeal  more 
than  the  glitter  of  wealth  at  home. 

Consider  for  a  moment  the  work  which  the  Christian  Asso- 
ciation of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  is  undertaking  in  Can- 
ton. It  is  its  purpose  to  establish  in  China  a  medical  school  sim- 
ilar to  the  great  school  which  a  medical  missionary  from  Edin- 
borough  founded  in  this  city  in  1765  with  the  prophecy  that  "  this 
institution  may,  by  sending  its  graduates  abroad,  give  birth  to 
other  institutions  of  a  similar  nature."  The  possibilities  for  good 
from  such  a  school  among  the  Chinese  are  unlimited.  To  train 
native  doctors,  of  whom  there  are  at  present  none,  who  will 
carry  civilization  and  Christianity  to  all  parts  of  China  on  their 
ministry  of  healing  is  a  w^ork  w^orthy  of  the  Master.  Yale, 
Princeton,  and  other  colleges  are  doing  a  similar  work  in  China. 
There  seems  to  be  literally  a  missionary  uprising  among  students. 

The  appeal  of  universal  brotherhood  which  faith  in  the  father- 
hood of  God  implies,  and  which  is  everjrwhere  being  sounded, 
reaches  many  besides  those  brought  up  in  Evangelical  Churches. 
It  is  the  practical  Christianity  of  missions,  in  behalf  of  a  people 
whose  needs  are  beyond  words,  that  makes  the  appeal  for  foreign 
w^orkers  so  attractive  to  college  men  irrespective  of  creed.  The 
same  spirit  and  appeal  are  sending  men  and  w^omen  into  settle- 
ments and  social  service  work  among  the  foreigners  in  our  cities. 
If  we  believe  in  universal  brotherhood  why  let  a  few  days'  jour- 
ney hold  us  back  from  a  need  many  times  as  great? 

Then  again  to  have  a  part,  even  though  slight,  in  shaping  the 
future  of  a  great  waking  land  like  China  appeals  to  the  patriot- 
ism of  the  student  who  stops  to  consider  what  he  may  thus  do 
for  another  land  and  so  for  his  own  and  for  the  world.     Is  it  not 


115 

our  duty  to  assist  if  possible  in  the  great  revolution  which  is 
silently  going  on  and  give  to  China,  as  she  stretches  out  her  arms 
to  secure  the  best  which  the  West  has,  all  that  has  been  so  freely 
given  to  us?  It  is  just  as  essentially  a  duty  for  us  to  give  to  the 
Chinese  people  the  highest  thoughts  of  life  which  we  have  evolved 
as  that  we  take  to  them  our  best  in  medical  science.  Sanitation 
and  a  live  religion  are  needs  of  pressing  importance  in  China  to- 
day. 

In  America  are  many  Chinese  students  seeking  the  secrets  of 
our  civilization.  We  must  give  them,  not  only  the  best  commer- 
cial, diplomatic,  and  technical  science  that  we  have,  but  the  most 
advanced  knowledge  of  religion  and  the  higher  life  as  well,  in 
order  that  they  may  return  to  the  new  China  leaders  in  every 
phase  of  activity  and  thought.  There  are  4,000  more  Chinese 
students  coming  to  our  schools  each  year.  Have  not  the  liberal 
churches  an  opportunity  and  a  duty  to  these  ambitious  youths? 

With  this  brief  glimpse  of  the  foreign  mission  situation  as  it 
appears  to  the  colleges,  let  us  look  at  the  problem  which  confronts 
the  liberal  student  when  he  considers  making  such  a  service  his 
life  work.  In  presenting  the  fact  that  there  seems  to  be  no 
means  by  which  a  liberal  student  can  go  to  the  foreign  field,  may 
I  give  the  experience  of  a  fellow  student? 

While  in  college  he  attended  the  Northfield  Student  Confer- 
ence, where  he  heard  presented  for  the  first  time  the  needs  and  op- 
portunities of  the  foreign  mission  field.  The  pitiful  condition 
of  the  people,  the  great  need  for  men,  and  the  joy  of  a  life  of 
service  appealed  to  him  and  brought  him  face  to  face  with  the 
question  of  his  life  work.  The  appeal  for  men  while  based  on 
Christian  motives  was  made  largely  on  the  ground  of  brother- 
hood, of  the  need  abroad  and  the  ability  and  duty  of  students  in 
America  to  seize  the  opportunity. 

The  seed  there  sown  germinated  and  after  overcoming  many 
obstacles  it  became  the  great  desire  of  this  man  to  go  to  China  as 
a  medical  missionary  and  he  entered  a  medical  school. 

Conscious  that  his  liberal  theology  might  cause  his  rejection 
by  the  mission  boards,  yet  believing  that  he  was  called  by  a  higher 
authority  than  they,  he  began  to  consider  more  specifically  how 
he  would  go  out.     He  offered  his  services  to  several  organizations 


ii6 

with  results  somewhat  of  this  nature:  Whether  he  could  heal  the 
sick  was  little  questioned  and  the  suffcrinp  millions  were  for  the 
moment  forgotten,  but  did  he  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the 
Bible,  the  deity  of  Jesus  and  his  bodily  resurrection?  Did  he 
believe  that  God  had  eternally  damned  the  heathen  for  their  ig- 
norance of  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ  was  crucified  to  wipe  out 
their  sins?  I  may  not  have  the  exact  questions  but  it  was  inqui- 
ries like  these  that  floored  my  liberal  friend. 

The  appeal  for  men  is  made  along  philanthropic  and  humani- 
tarian lines;  the  test  for  fitness  is  doctrinal.  In  this  I  believe 
the  recruiting  agencies  are  at  fault.  Why  not  come  out  and  say, 
"  We  want  men  to  teach  to  the  Chinese  the  Nicene  Creed  and  the 
traditions  of  the  Christian  Church."  This  is  not  what  they  want 
done.  It  is  not  the  spirit  of  present  day  missions.  The  policy 
of  modern  missions  is  far  broader  than  the  professions  which 
most  of  the  leaders  cling  to  and  demand  of  their  missionaries. 
The  emphasis  is  elsewhere  and  the  work  accomplished  is  more 
far-reaching  than  the  gospel  preached. 

To  show  that  missions  are  bigger  than  their  professions  let  us 
consider  some  of  the  effective  instruments  of  field  work  and  in 
what  their  success  lies.  The  school,  the  hospital,  the  loving 
service  of  men  and  women  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  these 
are  the  unanswerable  arguments  which  inspire  among  any  people 
a  faith  in  the  things  which  have  brought  the  missionary  among 
them.  Whether  they  acquiesce  in  the  creed  of  their  leader  is 
immaterial,  for  it  is  their  faith  in  him,  and  from  him  to  the  spirit 
M^hich  works  in  him,  which  makes  of  them  new  men  and  women. 

The  far-reaching  influence  of  missions  is  not  in  teaching  to 
a  people  a  theology  and  traditions  foreign  to  them,  but  in  animat- 
ing those  people  with  the  spirit  of  love  which  is  eternal,  in  teach- 
ing them  to  overcome  the  environment  which  is  holding  them 
down,  and  in  instructing  them  in  the  arts  and  sciences  which  will 
enable  them  to  use  the  resources  which  lie  about  them.  There 
must  be  a  readjustment  of  theories  to  the  facts.  Many  mission- 
aries in  the  field  realize  this  and  are  encouraging  the  natives  to 
develop  a  Christianity  and  an  organization  of  their  own,  inspired 
by  and  in  touch  with,  the  same  spirit  which  dwelt  in  Jesus,  but 
fitted  to  the  thought  and  customs  of  the  people. 


117 

The  humanitarian  service  of  missions  speaks  louder  than  any 
theological  appeal  and  many  men  and  women  subscribe  to  the 
doctrinal  tests  as  a  matter  of  course  and  with  little  thought,  for 
it  is  work  they  want  to  do.  Every  once  in  a  while  however  a 
man  comes  along,  inspired  by  the  same  purpose  to  serve,  who  can 
not  conscientiously  accept  the  doctrinal  requirements.  What  is 
he  to  do?  He  may  stand  patiently  by  awaiting  a  more  liberal 
standard  in  the  boards,  or  perhaps  he  gives  up  in  disgust  his 
cherished  ideal  and  turns  pessimistically  to  get  what  he  can  out 
of  the  scramble  for  wealth. 

Many  things  indicate  that  there  is  a  distinct  place  for  liberal 
religion  in  the  East.  Far-sighted  missionaries  agree  that  the 
spirit  of  Christianity  must  develop  its  own  church  and  that  there 
is  little  place  for  the  traditions  of  the  Western  Churches.  It 
is  attested  by  many  that  a  rational  attitude  toward  Christianity 
is  the  only  one  acceptable  to  the  educated  Eastern  mind.  The 
old  methods  reached  only  the  uneducated  lower  classes.  There 
is  a  place  and  need  for  a  mission  to  the  more  intelligent. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  failure  of  the  Eastern  religions 
in  practice.  Such  statements  come  not  only  from  the  mission 
field  but  Chinese  and  Japanese  students  in  America  acknowledge 
the  failure  of  their  ethics,  which  lack  the  spiritual  dynamic  that 
vitalizes  Christianity.  The  leaders  in  Japan  are  realizing  this 
need  in  their  civilization,  and  many  Chinese  thinkers  are  coming 
to  the  same  conclusion. 

We  are  here  preaching  the  brotherhood  of  man.  That  means 
all  men  if  it  means  anything.  What  are  the  boundaries  of  a 
continent  in  these  days  of  rapid  travel?  We  believe  that  we 
have  found,  in  our  broad  and  liberal  faith  a  way  of  life,  the  best 
we  know.  If  this  faith  is  a  reality  to  us  we  cannot  be  satisfied 
to  keep  it  to  ourselves,  we  are  bound  by  this  very  faith  to  become 
evangelists.  Propagation  is  a  natural  law  of  the  spiritual  life. 
Missions  are  the  quickening  stimulus  of  the  church. 

We  are  on  trial.  Is  the  liberal  movement  mainly  an  intel- 
lectual revolt,  or  is  it  a  great  spiritual  purpose  as  large  and 
dynamic  as  the  orthodoxy  it  is  seeking  to  displace?  If  we  are  to 
be  mere  critics  of  the  Christian  movement  we  must  be  content 
to  see  its  great  achievements  performed  by  others.     On  the  other 


ii8 

hand  if  "  Liberality  "  means  to  us  something  comprehensive  and 
earnest  we  shall  see  that  we  can  only  make  it  attractive  to  the 
world  at  large  by  filling  liberalism  with  a  sense  of  responsibility  siS 
large  as  the  world.  What  better  field  could  we  find  on  which  to 
fight  the  battle  of  freedom  than  that  on  which  it  was  fought  by 
Paul  ?  Let  the  liberal  churches  demand  of  the  mission  boards 
a  wider  policy  or  else  let  them  organize  a  missionary  movement 
themselves.  In  facing  this  situation  Liberal  Christianity  is  on 
trial.  Is  it  to  be  made  a  theological  propaganda  or  a  religious 
awakening? 

The  problem  of  the  liberal  student  of  which  a  solution  is  asked 
of  this  Conference  is  this:  What  is  the  proper  outlet  for  the 
enthusiasm  for  foreign  religious  and  humanitarian  service  w'hich 
is  aroused  among  those  w^hose  theology  does  not  conform  to  the 
requirements  of  the  mission  boards?  Great  as  is  the  need  at 
home  it  does  not  satisfy  the  student  who  has  pointed  his  life 
toward  the  foreign  field,  and  who  realizes  that  if  he  does  not 
do  this  work  it  will  not  be  done.  Yonder  lies  a  field  where  he 
can  serve  to  the  utmost  of  his  strength,  where  he  is  sorely  needed, 
and  where  duty  bids  him  go.  How  is  such  a  man  to  go?  The 
mission  boards  do  not  want  him  because  he  cannot  subscribe  to 
dogmas  which  have  ceased  to  carry  meaning.  Shall  he  agree  to 
doctrinal  tests  with  mental  reservations,  believing  that  the  end 
justifies  the  means,  or  must  he  turn  away  and  forego  what  to  him 
has  become  a  firm  purpose  and  a  life  ambition? 

RELATION  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERALS  TO  FOREIGN 

MISSIONS 

REV.  CLAY  MAC  CAULEY,  OF  TOKIO,   JAPAN 

In  beginning  his  remarks,  Mr.  MacCauley  spoke  of  having  an 
especial  interest  in  the  theme,  because  he  is  not  only  a  religious 
liberal  but  also  a  foreign  missionary.  For  eleven  years  he  had 
been  in  Japan,  representing  there  the  American  Unitarian  As- 
sociation. The  Unitarian  mission  to  Japan  was  exceptional 
among  missionary  enterprises,  in  that  it  was  established  in  re- 
sponse to  an  invitation  given  by  some  representative  Japanese,  who 
were    desirous   of   having   the   rational   side   of   the    religion   of 


119 

Western  civilization  presented  to  their  people,  by  an  acknowl- 
edged Western  liberal.  The  Japanese  are  eminently  a  ration- 
alizing people,  and  liberalism  in  religion  is  peculiarly  congenial 
to  them. 

"  But,"  continued  the  speaker,  "  apart  from  my  Japanese  ex- 
perience, this  theme  interests  me  greatly.  The  time  has  fully 
come,  I  believe,  when  religious  liberals  are  called  upon  to  take  a 
sympathetic  interest  in  mission  work  generally;  a  practical  sym- 
pathy, that  shall  be,  in  fact,  not  less  inclusive  than  the  whole 
habitation  of  mankind.  If  any  group  of  kindred  men  and  women 
is  summoned  to  go  into  all  the  world  to  preach  their  gospel  to 
every  creature,  it  is,  I  am  confident,  the  religious  liberals.  This 
is  a  bold  assertion,  I  know,  but  I  do  not  make  it  without  good 
reason.  Of  course,  I  do  not  believe  that  all  mankind  are  to  be 
eternally  ruined  unless  they  are  saved  through  our  gospel.  That 
belief  may  be  the  motive  impulse  that  distinguishes  the  foreign 
missions  of  many  of  the  Christian  churches.  Necessarily,  it  is 
not  mine.  Nor  do  I  believe  that  it  is  our  duty  to  assume  that 
we  possess  the  only  revelation  of  God's  will  to  man,  and  that, 
therefore,  we  should  attempt  to  substitute  our  knowledge  for  the 
false  faiths  that  other  peoples  hold.  There  are  many  foreign 
missions  that  are  established  and  supported  because  of  this  con- 
viction. Needless  to  say,  that  the  reason  for  the  claim  I  make 
does  not  lie  here. 

But,  I  do  believe  that  as  religious  liberals  we  have  received, 
and  are  actuated  bj',  certain  inestimable  principles  and  faiths, 
which  we  are  in  duty  bound  to  make  known,  and  to  seek 
to  make  vitally  inspiring,  not  only  among  ourselves,  but 
among  our  immediate  associates;  and  not  only  throughout 
our  near  environment,  but  to  the  measure  of  our  ability 
and  opportunity  among  our  fellow  countr^'men ;  and  yet 
more,  even  among  our  fellowmen  every^vhere,  however  re- 
mote from  us,  or  different  from  us,  in  nationality  or  race.  This 
duty  would  be  more  or  less  imperative  at  any  time  to  those 
who  should  come  to  think  as  we  think,  to  feel  as  we  feel,  and  to 
be  inspired  with  the  faiths  that  have  been  aroused  in  our  minds 
and  hearts.  But,  in  the  present  age,  this  duty  commands  with 
peculiar   urgency.     Within    the   near   past,    becoming   a    fact   of 


I20 

world  wide  inclusiveness  now,  it  has  happened  that  all  the  chil- 
dren of  man  have  been  brought  into  an  intimacy  of  association, 
into  a  vital  interdependence  and  thereby  into  a  community  of 
prosperity  and  adversity,  such  as  have  never  been  known  before 
since  the  dispersing  migrations  of  primeval  mankind.  Explicitly, 
just  what  I  mean  is  this.  For  the  first  time  in  known  human 
history,  an  era  of  universal  internationalism  has  been  opened,  and 
is  now  fast  gaining  full  dominion  throughout  humanity.  Inter- 
nationalism —  it  is  not  too  much  to  say, —  has  become  the  most 
potent  force  in  man's  collective  life.  Under  a  craving  for  con- 
quest and  wider  mastery,  impelled  by  avarice,  stimulated  by  de- 
sire for  knowledge,  peoples  who  were  fortunate  in  possessing  su- 
perior power  and  prowess  have  for  ages  built  up  and  broken 
down  barriers  between  lands  and  nations.  But,  in  these  later 
days,  by  means  of  miraculous  m.echanical  discoveries  and  inven- 
tions, all  the  continents  and  islands  of  the  planet  have  been 
brought  within  easy  and  quick  intercommunication,  and  forced 
into  increasing  interrelationships.  Navigation  by  steam,  swift 
railways,  the  printing  press,  books  and  newspapers,  the  telegraph 
and  the  telephone,  are  fast  making  the  world  one  expanse  of 
open  ports,  of  public  highways,  of  daily  published  records  of 
events  and  opinion.  And  more  than  this,  in  many  lands  hosts 
of  the  denizens  of  the  world,  from  places  near  and  farthest  away, 
are  coming  and  going,  interchanging  homes  and  labor. 

But,  note  what  specific  forces  have  been  dominant  in  the  prog- 
ress of  the  marvellous  new  age  that  now  is.  The  forces  which 
have  animated  and  guided  the  civilization  which  is  our  own 
birthright  and  heritage  have  been  its  chief  source,  and  have  hith- 
erto impelled  it.  The  internationalism  that  is  now  beginning 
to  actuate  all  nations,  was  started  from  Europe  and  America. 
Beginning  with  maritime  adventure  and  discovery  accompanied 
by  war  and  spoliation,  more  peaceful  commercial  ventures  were 
made,  leading  alien  peoples  at  length  into  voluntary  trade,  then 
into  friendly  treaties  and  at  last  into  the  give  and  take  of  mutual 
helpfulness  and  good  fellowship.  Gradually  from  Europe  and 
America  the  less  favored  peoples  began  to  receive  the  influences 
and  instrumentalities  of  a  superior  civilization  and  to  use  them 
for  their  own  larger  and  higher  development.     Some  peoples  have 


121 

sought  us,  of  the  West,  that  they  might  appropriate,  and  wc 
have  gone  to  them  of  the  far  away  parts  of  the  earth  that  we 
might  give,  our  mechanical  inventions,  our  industrial  methods,  our 
scientific  discoveries,  our  literary  treasures,  and  even  our  political 
aims  and  forms  of  civic  organization.  In  many  foreign  lands, 
in  recent  years,  European  and  American  merchants,  manufactur- 
ers and  scholars,  and  numerous  teachers  of  the  sciences,  arts,  let- 
ters, economics  and  politics  have  found  homes,  and  have  given 
freely  of  their  abundance,  thereby  helping  the  backward  races  to 
move  forward  speedily  to  positions  approximating  our  own  in 
power,  wealth  and  knowledge. 

Of  course,  in  matters  of  religious  faith  and  practice  the  peo- 
ples of  Christendom  have  not  been  indifferent  or  idle  during  the 
development  of  the  new  internationalism.  Should  Christianity 
ever  cease  to  be  a  missionary  faith,  it  would  cease  to  be  at  all, 
as  a  living  thing.  But  as  Christianity  is  yet  very  much  alive,  one 
of  the  most  aggressive  and  powerful  accompaniments  of  the 
world's  growing  internationalism  has  been  the  abounding  mis- 
sionary activity  of  the  churches  of  Christendom.  The  Catholic 
churches  —  both  Greek  and  Roman  —  the  Protestant  denomina- 
tions, orthodox  and  evangelical,  without  exception,  so  far  as  I 
know,  have  followed  hard  upon  whatever  com.mercial  or  other 
agencies  have  opened  ways  for  them,  into  whatever  lands  or  peo- 
ples, to  preach  the  gospel  of  Christ  as  they  believe  it,  obeying  the 
supreme  injunction  of  their  Lord,  hoping  thus  to  bring  upon  the 
whole  earth  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  of  which  Jesus  was  prophet. 
Now,  I  would  not  decry  in  any  way  this  universal  outward 
and  onward  movement  of  the  churches  of  Christ;  their  zeal  in 
utilizing  the  maturing  internationalism  of  humanity  in  favor  of 
their  cherished  faiths.  Far  from  it.  Rather  would  I  emphasize 
the  claim  that  it  is  the  duty  of  religious  liberals  to  do  likewise 
for  their  own  faith,  and  to  do  this  to  the  full  measure  of  their 
abilit\\ 

Since,  therefore,  it  is  the  avowed  conviction  of  liberals  in  reli- 
gion, that  reason  is  far  better  than  superstitition ;  that  mental 
freedom  is  far  more  ennobling  than  slavery  of  mind  ;  that  gener- 
osity of  judgment  is  more  conducive  to  human  happiness  than 
bigotry;  that  character  is  a  worthier  exponent  of  the  worth  of 


122 

a  life  than  a  formal  creed  or  the  practice  of  an  ordained  sacra- 
ment, and  that  love,  service  and  peace  are  the  crowning  gains 
possible  for  social  humanity,  it  is  inevitable  that  we,  as  religious 
liberals,  should  not  allow  any  of  mankind  to  be  alien  to  us  or  re- 
main beyond  our  sympathetic  touch.  If,  indeed,  religious  liberals 
do  not  make  earnest  efforts  towards  world-wide  missionary  work, 
their  only  justifiable  excuse  is  want  of  power,  not  want  of  will, 
to  engage  in  such  work.  It  is  my  conviction  that  for  religious 
liberalism  the  range  of  its  sympathy  should  be  bounded  by  no 
less  a  domain  than  that  of  mankind,  and  the  extent  of  its  mis- 
sionary work  should  be  limited  only  by  the  means  it  has  at  com- 
mand. 

The  relation  of  Religious  Liberals  to  Foreign  Missions  is,  then, 
I  hold,  one  of  cordial  sympathy,  and  of  as  wide  a  cooperation 
in  supporting  them  as  there  are  means  to  use.  Distance  of  land 
or  race  should  not  embarrass  this  duty.  There  is  as  much  reason 
for  liberals  to  proclaim  and  to  live  their  faiths  among  the  peoples 
of  Asia  and  Africa,  as  among  the  peoples  of  Europe  and  America. 
So  then,  I  dare  to  hope  that  the  day  is  sure  to  come,  when  this 
National  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals,  now  holding  its  first 
congress,  is  to  be  only  one  of  many  like  leagues,  gathered  in 
many  lands,  all  which  shall  be  affiliated  with  one  mighty  Inter- 
national Council,  through  which  pure  religion  shall  be  increased 
the  world  around,  and  mankind  be  led  forward  into  a  perfected 
unity  of  the  spirit,  in  the  bonds  of  peace.  Then,  will  the  true 
Kingom  of  God  at  last  be  near:  —  all  of  diverse  mankind  will 
have  begun  to  realize  a  divine  brotherhood ;  a  fellowship  of  good 
will,  of  mutual  helpfulness  and  peace." 


123 


Third  Topic  of  the  Congress, 

"  RELIGIOUS  AND  MODERN  LIFE." 

THE  RELIGION  OF  DEMOCRACY  AS  EXEMPLIFIED 
BY  THE  CAREER  OF  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

REV.    JENKIN    LLOYD    JONES,     MINISTER    ABRAHAM    LINCOLN 
CENTRE,   CHICAGO,   ILL. 

"  We'se  got  him  now;  he  surely  belongs  to  us  to-day!  "  sobbed 
the  colored  woman  as  she  leaned  against  the  iron  grating  looking 
towards  the  White  House  wherein  the  body  of  the  great  Eman- 
cipator lay,  she  herself  too  much  broken  to  join  the  sad  procession 
that  was  seeking  a  last  look  at  the  benignant  face.  At  that  very- 
moment  the  kings  and  queens  of  monarchical  Europe,  the  poets 
and  philosophers  of  many  nations,  were  sending  their  floral 
wreaths  to  lay  upon  his  bier. 

"  He  belongs  to  the  ages  now!  "  were  the  first  words  that  broke 
the  silence  when  the  labored  breath  ceased  in  the  death  chamber. 
And  those  oracular  words  were  spoken  by  the  Secretary  of  War; 
one  who  long  before  there  was  thought  of  presidential  chair,  cabi- 
nets or  war  problems  in  connection  with  Mr.  Lincoln,  had  rudely 
dismissed  with  undisguised  contempt  the  awkward  lawyer  from 
Illinois;  he  who  had  offered  perhaps  the  most  humiliating  indig- 
nity ever  experienced  by  the  humble  backwoodsman  and  hard- 
working lawyer  of  the  prairies.  The  Illinois  Central  Railway 
Company  had  learned  to  trust  the  judgment  and  ability  of  the 
Springfield  attorney;  and  had  sent  him  to  take  part  in  an  im- 
portant suit  at  Cincinnati.  But  the  smart,  accomplished,  elegant, 
popular  advocate,  E.  M.  Stanton,  disdained  such  help.  Lin- 
coln pocketed  his  humiliation,  profited  by  his  experience,  and  re- 
turned, saying:  "  I  have  come  back  home  to  study  law  harder 
than  ever." 

When  the  great  trial  came  and  the  President  wanted  a  man  he 
could  trust,  a  man  who  would  be  alert,  a  will  that  was  irresist- 
ible for  Secretary  of  War,  he  selected  this  same  Stanton  who, 


124 

during  the  earlier  years  of  his  incumbency,  at  least,  distrusted 
the  judgment  of  his  chief,  was  tried  by  his  patience,  resented  his 
leniency,  and  oftentimes  protested  against  his  mercy.  And  still, 
this  was  the  man  who  broke  the  awful  desolation  of  the  death 
chamber  with  the  prophetic  words: 

"  Now  he  belongs  to  the  ages ! " 

Greatness  always  confuses  the  classification  of  the  psychologist, 
escapes  the  definitions  of  the  philosopher,  and  refuses  to  wear 
the  labels  of  the  dogmatist  and  the  sectarian  and  the  partisan. 
The  character  of  Abraham  Lincoln  baffles  analysis.  He  was  in- 
dependent of  convention,  indifferent  to  the  proprieties;  he  re- 
sented the  safeguards  that  seem  to  belong  to  powder,  but  ever 
found  his  way  into  the  sympathies,  then  into  the  confidence,  at  last 
into  the  admiration  and  reverence  of  rich  and  poor,  black  and 
white,  high  and  low.  At  his  death  friends  and  foes  alike  were 
in  tears;  the  nations  mourned.  Jefferson  Davis,  the  humiliated 
president  of  the  lost  cause,  he  who  had  gathered  and  directed 
armies  for  the  destruction  of  that  nation  to  the  preservation  of 
which  Lincoln  gave  his  last  drop  of  blood,  exxlaimed: 

"  Next  to  the  day  when  its  armies  surrendered,  the  day  of  Lincoln's 
death  was  the  blackest  ever  known  by  the  people  of  the  South !  " 

Lincoln's  democracy  has  been  traced  to  his  sincerity,  sympathy, 
ambition,  lowly  birth,  love  of  humor,  the  absence  of  the  sophisti- 
cation of  the  formal  training  and  the  complications  of  polite  so- 
ciety,—  and  all  of  these  are  true;  each  of  these  claims  can  be  justi- 
fied by  ample  illustrations.  His  personality  is  so  pervasive;  it 
sticks  out  everywhere.  It  is  impossible  to  deal  to  any  extent  in 
argument  concerning  Lincoln,  because  illustrations  are  so  perti- 
nent. One  cannot  discuss  his  character  abstractly;  the  fullness 
of  his  life  intrudes;  your  logical  processes,  like  his,  are  cut  short 
with  the  irrepressible, —  "  That  reminds  me." 

No  one  to-day  will  deny  that  Lincoln  is  the  best  beloved  man 
of  the  century;  that  he  is  rapidly  becoming  one  of  the  best  beloved 
men  of  the  race;  that  he  is  clearly  one  of  the  few^  profoundly 
true,  fundamental  democrats  afforded  by  history. 

I  would  like  to  spend  the  few  moments  allotted  me  in  trying 


125 

to  emphasize  the  fact  that  this  democracy  was  rooted  in  the  essen- 
tial fundamentals  of  religion.  Or,  to  put  it  another  way, —  that 
his  democracy  sprang  out  of  the  profound  religiousness  of  his 
nature,  his  piety  and  patience,  the  smiles  and  the  tears  that 
justified  Walt  Whitman's  claim  that  "  He  is  the  grandest  figure 
on  all  the  crowded  canvas  of  the  nineteenth  century,"  it  sprang 
out  of  his  sublime  sense  of  justice,  his  undying  faith  in  righteous- 
ness, his  entire  consecration  to  the  decisions  of  the  Eternal  scales 
which  without  fear  and  without  favor  measure  to  each  his  just 
dues. 

Dr.  Cuyler's  recent  word  in  the  Homiletic  Review  calls  Lincoln 
"  the  most  religious  ruler  since  Cromwell,"  and  then  hastens,  very 
fittingly  as  I  think,  to  remove  this  exception.  The  early  stories 
that  tell  of  his  closing  the  store  and  walking  three  miles  to  return 
the  few  coppers  that  would  right  the  wrong  change  in  the  pur- 
chase of  a  pound  of  tea;  the  long  kept  little  bag  of  coin  which  was 
the  balance  due  the  post  office  department,  waiting  for  the  offi- 
cial to  come  and  claim  it;  the  exact  way  in  which  he  divided  the 
fees  that  came  into  the  law  partnership,  putting  the  partner's  half 
into  an  envelope  before  daring  to  use  his  own;  the  heroic  way  in 
which  he  faced  the  ominous  debt  imposed  upon  him  by  an  un- 
scrupulous partner,  from  which  the  law  and  public  sentiment 
would  easily  have  released  him,  a  debt  so  ominous  that  it  seemed 
to  mortgage  his  whole  life,  a  veritable  "  national  debt,"  as  he 
called  it,  from  which  he  did  not  shrink  until  the  last  farthing  was 
paid,  and  from  which  he  did  not  escape  until  his  congressional  fees 
in  Washington  helped  him  out, —  all  point  to  the  fundamentals  of 
religion  which  demand  as  well  as  inspire  a  democracy  such  as 
Lincoln  exemplified. 

But  this  honesty  is  inadequately  represented  by  the  cash  book. 
When  asked  how  he  came  to  be  called  "  Honest  Abe,"  he  replied: 
"  I  do  not  know,  unless  it  is  that  I  was  never  worth  a  cent  in  a 
case  the  righteousness  of  which  I  doubted,  but  when  I  believed 
I  was  in  the  right  I  was  mighty  hard  to  shake  oft'." 

"Make  no  promises;  I  will  abide  by  none,"  was  his  message 
to  the  friends  of  the  Chicago  convention  of  i860  who  wanted  to 
make  his  nomination  doubly  sure  by  a  little  skillful  trading.  To 
the  second  convention  at  Baltimore,  in  answer  to  a  long  confi- 


126 

dential  letter  from  his  secretary,  Nicolay,  asking  instructions  con- 
cerninfz;  vice-presidents  and  platforms,  he  returned  the  document 
with  a  four-line  endorsement: 

"  Wish  not  to  interfere  about  vice-presidents ;  cannot  interfere  about 
platforms;  convention  must  judge  for  itself." 

"  If  anyone  must  do  this  I  will  do  it,"  was  his  response  to  the 
patronizing  Secretary  of  State  who  kindly  assumed,  in  the  early 
weeks  of  the  administration,  that  he  must  piece  out  the  Presi- 
dent's indecision  and  inefficiency.  Lincoln  could  be  as  harsh  as 
truth,  and  consequently  he  was  gentle  as  love  and  tender  as 
mercy.  He  sent  the  noisy  Vallandigham  beyond  the  line,  but 
pardoned  the  deserting  boy,  whose  courage  and  lo3^alty  were  weak- 
ened by  the  pathos  of  the  Ohio  agitator.  Of  the  young  soldier 
under  sentence  of  death  for  desertion,  whose  record  showed  pre- 
vious bravery,  he  said,  trying  to  break  the  rigid  rules  of  war  with- 
out offending  the  captains  thereof: 

"Did  you  say  he  was  once  badly  wounded?" 

"  He  was." 

"  Then,  as  the  scripture  says,  '  In  the  shedding  of  blood  is  the  remis- 
sion of   sins/  we  will  have  to  let  him  off." 

Says  Holland,  in  the  most  just  and  penetrating  of  the  early 
lives  of  Lincoln: 

"  He  had  always  been  a  reconciler  of  difficulties  between  men." 

And  again: 

"  There  never  lived  a  man  more  considerate  of  human  weakness 
than  Abraham  Lincoln.  .  .  .  Charity,  pity,  mercy,  sympathy,  were 
virtues  that  reigned  in  the  White  House  during  Mr.  Lincoln's  occu- 
pation of  it." 

Next  to  his  sense  of  justice  we  find  at  the  root  of  his  character, 
at  the  heart  of  his  being,  a  marvelous  patience.  He  rested  in  the 
thought  of  the  Eternal.  What  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  he  was  to  the 
abolitionists.  For  many  months  their  impatience  with  his  hesi- 
tancy led  them  to  doubt  his  sincerity.  They  knew  not  the  rock 
upon  which  his  character  rested.  "  H  anything  is  wrong,  slavery 
is  wrong,"  was  the  clue  not  only  to  his  hatred  of  it  but  the  root 
of  his  triumph  over  it.     This  gave  him  the  power  to  discriminate 


127 

between  things  primary  and  things  secondary.  He  could  "  wait 
on  the  Lord,"  when  human  vision  and  human  power  failed.  He 
could  change  his  mind  and  say  so.  He  could  disagree  with  an- 
other and  still  cleave  to  him,  be  just  to  him,  love  him.  This 
often  made  him  a  trial  to  his  friends  and  an  enigma  to  his  ene- 
mies. 

After  the  battle  of  Gettysburg  he  wrote  a  sharp  letter  to  Gen- 
eral Meade,  expressing  his  bitter  disappointment  of  his  action  or 
lack  of  action  after  the  victory:  "Your  golden  opportunity  is 
gone;  I  am  distressed  immeasurably  because  of  it."  But  the  let- 
ter was  never  sent.     Seven  days  later  he  wrote: 

"  I  am  now  profoundly  grateful  for  what  has  been  done,  without 
criticism  for  what  was  not  done.  General  Meade  has  my  confidence 
as  a  brave  and  scholarly  officer  and  as  a  true  man." 

A  similar  confession  of  mistakes  came  promptly  to  Grant  after 
the  Vicksburg  triumph,  and  to  Sherman  after  the  march  to  the 
sea. 

This  ability  to  endure  the  deliberation  of  the  stars,  to  abide 
the  patience  of  the  Eternal,  is  strikingly  illustrated  in  his  many 
amnesty  proclamations,  of  which  not  less  than  eight,  probably 
more,  were  issued.  Over  and  over  again  he  held  out  the  olive 
branch  to  all  kinds  of  wrong-doers  whose  sins  might  be  traced  to 
weakness,  ignorance,  the  unconscious  bias  of  heredity  or  environ- 
ment. He  was  the  "  Prince  of  Pardoners,"  but  never  to  the  con- 
fusion of  main  issues.  The  petition  of  "  a  large  number  of  re- 
spectable citizens "  carried  less  weight  with  him  than  did  the 
tears  of  a  little  girl  from  Pennsylvania,  who  had  come  to  plead 
for  her  brother's  life.     He  said  to  her: 

"  Poor  child !  here  are  no  governors,  senators  or  army  officers  to 
plead  your  case  for  you,  and  you  wear  no  hoops.  I'll  be  bound.  I'll 
pardon  your  brother !  " 

His  appeal  was  ever  to  the  "  better  angel  of  our  natures." 

"  Why  should  there  not  be  a  patient  confidence  in  the  ultimate  jus- 
tice of  the  people?  Is  there  any  better  or  equal  hope  in  the  world? 
In  our  present  conditions,  is  either  party  without  faith  of  being  in 
the  right?  If  the  Almighty  Ruler  of  nations  with  His  eternal  truth 
and  justice  be  on  your  side,  of  the  North,  or  on  yours  of  the  South, 


128 

that  truth  and  that  justice  will  surely  prevail  by  the  judgment  of  this 
great  tribunal  of  the  American  people." 

One  phase  of  Lincoln's  administration  has  never  been  ade- 
quately told.  His  unmeasured  devotion  to  the  idea  of  compen- 
sated emancipation  has  never  been  appreciated.  From  considera- 
tions of  justice  and  right  as  well  as  polic}'^  and  economy,  how  per- 
sistently he  labored  to  find  a  just  way  out  of  the  entanglements 
of  slavery,  realizing  that  it  was  a  national  and  not  a  local  sin,  and 
that  we  were  all  responsible  for  the  belated  barbarism  of  our 
civilization. 

These  fundamental  religious  qualities  in  Lincoln  are  also  the 
fundamental  elements  of  democracy.  Lincoln  dared  to  com- 
pose his  cabinet  of  his  rivals  and  his  opponents, —  those  who  dis- 
trusted him  and  sometimes  worse  than  distrusted.  His  entire 
career  gives  high  denial  to  the  specious  fallacy  that  is  working 
such  mischief  in  current  politics,  viz.,  that  this  is  a  government 
by  party,  while  in  truth  this  government  miakes  and  unmakes  par- 
ties. Parties  are  tolerable  only  so  far  as  they  stand  for  real 
issues  and  the  conflict  that  springs  out  of  honest  differences  of 
opinion  concerning  fundamental  principles. 

This  made  of  him  a  civic  prophet,  a  political  evangelist.  In 
the  nineteenth  century  A.  D.,  like  him  in  the  eighth  century  B.  C, 
he  proved  also  to  be  a  religious  prophet.  The  man  of  the  state 
was  the  holy  man  of  the  church ;  his  w^as  the  power  to  make  weak 
men  strong,  halting  men  bold.  While  Lincoln  wrought  con- 
sciously for  the  United  States,  unconsciously  he  wrought  for  the 
progress  of  the  world.  How  his  insight  gave  to  him  foresight! 
How  he  anticipated  the  problems  of  to-day!  Away  back  as  a 
young  man,  in  his  first  political  career,  w^hen  but  twenty-four 
years  old,  he  declared  for  woman's  right  to  the  ballot.  In  an 
early  address  to  the  Sons  of  Temperance  he  said : 

"  The  reasonable  men  of  the  world  have  long  since  agreed  that 
intemperance  is  one  of  the  greatest  if  not  the  very  greatest  of  all  evils 
among  mankind." 

How  he  anticipated  that  thing  which  in  these  da3^s  we  call 
"  Commercialism," —  the  passion  to  speculate,  even  in  front  of  the 
battle!  In  his  first  annual  message  he  raised  a  warning  voice, 
anticipating  the  labor  problem: 


129 

"  Labor  is  prior  to  and  independent  of  capital.  Capital  is  only  the 
fruit  of  labor  and  could  never  have  existed  if  labor  had  not  first 
existed.  Labor  is  the  superior  of  capital  and  deserves  much  the  higher 
consideration." 

How  he  hated  the  office-seeker!  He  was  "glad  when  he  had 
the  varioloid,  because  he  now  had  something  to  give  which  the 
office-seekers  would  not  want."  "  I  might  do  something  to  save 
the  country  if  I  could  only  be  released  from  the  clamoring  horde 
of  office-seekers  who  demand  my  attention  at  one  end  of  the 
house  while  the  home  is  on  fire  at  the  other  end."  The  office- 
seeker  he  compared  to  the  little  boy  who  wanted  the  captain  to 
stop  the  steamboat  in  the  midst  of  the  rapids  that  he  might  re- 
cover his  apple  which  had  fallen  overboard. 

Away  back  in  1837  '^^  his  address  to  a  young  men's  lyceum  at 
Springfield,  when  but  twenty-eight  years  of  age,  he  uttered  these 
remarkable  words,  which  in  the  light  of  subsequent  history  glow 
with  the  imperishable  glory  of  divine  illumination : 

"  Let  every  man  remember  that  to  violate  the  law  is  to  trample  on 
the  blood  of  his  father,  and  to  tear  the  charter  of  his  own  and  his 
children's  liberty.  Let  reverence  for  the  laws  be  breathed  by  every 
American  mother  to  the  lisping  babe  that  prattles  on  her  lap ;  let  it 
be  taught  in  schools,  in  seminaries  and  in  colleges ;  let  it  be  written 
in  primers,  spelling-books  and  in  almanacs;  let  it  be  preached  from  the 
pulpit,  proclaimed  in  legislative  halls,  and  enforced  in  courts  of  justice. 
And,  in  short,  let  it  become  the  political  religion  of  the  nation;  and 
let  the  old  and  the  young,  the  rich  and  the  poor,  the  grave  and  the 
gay,  of  all  sexes  and  tongues  and  colors  and  conditions,  sacrifice  un- 
ceasingly upon  its  altars." 

In  thus  trying  to  discover  the  fundamental  elements  of  Abra- 
ham Lincoln,  I  do  not  know  whether  I  have  been  reaching  for 
the  foundations  of  democracy  or  of  religion.  The  words  grow 
interchangeable  in  the  last  analysis.  Aristocracy  in  its  very  na- 
ture is  impious.  Sectarianism  in  religion  is  a  menace  to  devotion, 
an  indignity  to  reverence,  as  partisanship  is  a  menace  to  patriotism 
and  an  indignity  to  the  state.  Lincoln  is  the  great  democrat  and 
consequently  the  great  prophet  of  religion,  not  chiefly  by  virtue 
of  anything  he  said,  deathless  as  were  his  sayings;  not  primarily 
for  anything  he  did,  sublime  as  were  his  achievements,  but  by 
what  he  was.     All  great  men  belong  to  humanity;  in  their  pres- 


I30 

ence  sectionalism,  castes,  creeds,  partisanship,  slink  out  of  sight. 
Nobility  blurs  all  labels,   shames  our  sectarian  conceits  and   our 
racial  arrogance. 
Says  Carlyle: 

"  Great  men  are  the  inspired  texts  of  that  divine  book  of  revelation 
whereof  a  chapter  is  completed  from  epoch  to  epoch,  and  by  some 
named   '  history.' " 

Call  the  roll  of  earth's  noblest  and  we  find  the  names  that  no 
one  dare  write  into  the  muster  rolls  of  parties,  denominations, 
families  or  nationalities;  they  are  too  large  for  such  a  scroll.  A 
great  man  is  the  keystone  of  the  arch  that  unites  what  otherwise 
would  be  the  unrelated  masonry  of  the  human  family.  A  great 
soul,  like  the  splendid  bridge  at  Niagara,  unites  with  links  of  steel 
the  nations  otherwise  separated  by  turbid  tides.  The  heart  of 
Lincoln  was  an  Atlantic  cable  whose  electric  veins  transmitted 
sympathies,  hopes  and  aspirations,  which  quickened  bosoms  sep- 
arated by  the  billows  that  bathe  the  distant  shores  of  continents. 
With  what  conceit  did  the  small  Athenians  and  Spartans  look 
over  their  little  walls  into  the  country  of  the  Barbarians.  But 
Socrates  and  Plato  looked  over  into  Egypt,  Jerusalem,  and  far-off 
Persia.  From  the  high  peaks  of  humanity,  Zoroaster,  Buddha, 
Confucius,  Moses,  Pythagoras,  Dante,  Luther,  Lincoln,  in  the 
signal  corps  of  God,  flash  fraternal  greetings  from  kingdom  to 
kingdom,  from  creed  to  creed,  from  sect  to  sect.  Brotherhood 
is  flashed  from  land  to  land,  from  age  to  age,  by  the  great  souls 
of  humanity,  of  which  Lincoln  was  a  type. 

German  provincialism  died  when  Lessing  and  Schiller  were 
born ;  the  despised  Island  lost  its  insular  quality  when  Shake- 
speare wrote ;  the  demand  of  the  thirteen  emaciated  colonies  was 
a  feeble  one,  provoking  contempt,  but  such  a  demand  ceased  to  be 
despicable  when  their  claims  were  urged  by  Franklin,  Paine,  Jef- 
ferson and  Washington. 

So  democracy  becomes  noble ;  the  backwoodsman  grows  regal 
and  the  log  cabin  classic  when  Lincoln  appears.  Brotherhood 
is  the  gift  of  the  great ;  fraternity  is  enforced  of  the  noble.  The 
"  Heathen  Chinee  "  ceases  to  be  the  butt  of  ridicule  when  one 
remembers  that  the  blood  of  Confucius  flows  in  his  veins, —  the 
man  who  said : 


131 

"The  man  who  in  the  view  of  gain  thinks  of  righteousness;  who 
in  the  view  of  danger  is  prepared  to  give  up  his  life ;  who  does  not 
forget  an  old  agreement,  however  far  back  it  extends, —  such  a  man 
may  be  reckoned  a  complete  man." 

The  Irishman  is  no  longer  the  despised  "  Paddy  "  on  the  rail- 
road when  we  remember  that  Emmett,  O'Connor,  Goldsmith 
and  More  were  Irishmen.  The  most  volatile  Frenchman  is 
prompt  to  claim  fellowship  with  the  most  phlegmatic  German 
through  Goethe  and  Von  Humboldt.  Those  only  write  the  word 
"  negro  "  with  two  "  g's  "  who  have  never  felt  the  inspiration 
that  goes  in  the  story  of  Toussaint  L'Ouverture,  Sojourner  Truth, 
Frederick  Douglass  and  Booker  T.  Washington.  Party  lines 
and  sectional  differences  vanish  when  we  mention  the  names  of 
Victor  Hugo,  John  Bright  and  Garibaldi;  even  the  bloody  chasm 
between  North  and  South  is  filled  or  forgotten  in  the  presence 
of  Charles  Sumner,  Alexander  Stephens,  Robert  E.  Lee  and 
General  Grant. 

So  Lincoln  stands  a  conspicuous  landmark  in  the  history  of  the 
race,  a  prophet  of  the  living  God,  not  through  any  favorable  com- 
bination of  circumstances  or  peculiarity  of  character,  but  by  rea- 
son of  the  fundamental  bulk  of  his  spirit. 

In  his  presence  the  small  and  mean  limitations  of  life  are  meas- 
ured in  their  fitting  proportions.  Great  men  teach  us  humility; 
they  drive  us  out  of  our  egotism.  As  Emerson  says:  "They  are 
lenses  through  which  we  read  our  own  minds."  Again  he  says: 
"  The  true  artist  has  a  planet  for  his  pedestal ;  an  adventurer 
nothing  broader  than  his  own  shoes."  Lincoln  broadens  our  sym- 
pathies, widens  our  fellowship,  lifts  our  ideals  beyond  the  power 
of  his  words  or  even  the  achievements  of  his  pen.  This  is  the 
truth  in  Emerson's  saying,  "  All  institutions  are  but  the  lengthened 
shadows  of  some  great  soul."  Whitman  asks  us  to  estimate  Lin- 
coln by  trying  to  imagine  what  the  United  States  would  now  be 
without  him. 

To-day  with  equal  force  we  can  ask:  "What  would  the  reli- 
gious life  of  America  be  without  Lincoln?"  Last  February  all 
creeds  and  confessions  united  in  honoring  as  a  prophet  of  religion, 
a  confessor  of  souls,  the  man  who  belonged  to  no  church,  and  to 
lay  claim  upon  whom,  by  any  sect  or  creed,  is  obvious  insolence, 


132 

unwarranted  bj'  facts.  His  universality  was  the  universality  of 
the  Golden  Rule,  the  inclusiveness  of  the  Beatitudes,  the  com- 
prehensiveness of  the  Ten  Commandments. 

But  great  men  have  their  dangers  as  well  as  their  uses.  When- 
ever we  dig  a  chasm  between  us  and  the  most  brilliant  we  rob 
ourselves  of  their  helpfulness.  Genius  is  no  miracle.  "  Great 
men"  is  a  misnomer;  "Greater  men"  is  the  truer  term;  aye, 
"  Man  "  without  an  adjective  ought  to  stand  for  them.  We, 
the  pigmies,  the  small  and  the  mean  men,  ought  to  carry  adjec- 
tives. The  manliest  Spirit  of  the  race  by  way  of  emphasis  chose 
the  term  "  Son  of  Man."  Not  the  bigot,  the  tyrant,  but  the 
hero  and  the  martyr  are  the  measures  of  a  man.  Great  souls 
deal  not  in  second-hand  virtues;  their  excellencies  are  stamped, 
like  railroad  tickets,  "  Not  transferable "  and  "  Good  for  this 
trip  only." 

Would  w^e  be  helped  by  Lincoln  we  must,  like  him,  look  for- 
ward and  not  back;  we  must,  like  him,  lend  the  hand,  dare  the 
deed,  be  the  fraternity  he  teaches  and  advance  the  cooperation  and 
brotherhood  he  so  magnificently  exemplified. 

The  old  contention  was  "  the  church  or  the  state."  Now  in 
America  our  effort  is  in  the  main  to  maintain  the  church  and 
the  state,  but  in  the  confession  of  Abraham  Lincoln, —  the  Church 
of  Democracy — it  wall  be  "the  church  for  the  state,"  which 
may  be  something  very  like  what  Jesus  meant  by  "  the  kinedom 
of  God  that  is  at  hand." 

EVOLUTION    AND    RELIGION:    RELIGION'S    DEBT 
TO  CHARLES  DARWIN  (1809-1909) 

REV.    CHARLES    E.    ST.   JOHN 

Under  the  name  of  Charles  Darwin  we  give  honor  to  the 
strongest  influence  that  has  touched  the  religious  world  in  mod- 
ern times.  Evolutionary  thought  existed  centuries  before  Darwin 
lived ;  and  the  theory  of  evolution,  as  formulated  by  Darwin,  has 
received  not  a  little  modification  at  the  hands  of  scientific  men 
since  he  died.  Nevertheless,  Darwin's  work  was  so  thorough  and 
conclusive  that  we  commonly  associate  with  his  name  the  influence 


133 

which  the  theory  of  evolution  has  exerted  upon  scientific  and  re- 
ligious thought  in  our  age. 

In  so  far  as  this  merit  may  justly  be  attributed  to  Charles  Dar- 
win, we  must  recognize  in  him  the  originator  of  the  most  revolu- 
tionary thought  that  the  Christian  world  has  known.  Evolution 
has  taken  its  stand  as  the  indisputable  interpreter  of  creation  and 
development,  and  of  the  relations  that  exist  between  God  and 
man.  Science,  philosophy,  and  religion  fall  into  order  at  its  touch, 
while  each  reinforces  its  arguments  by  specific  study.  Geology, 
astronomy,  biology,  history,  and  —  last  of  all  —  the  higher  criti- 
cism of  the  Bible,  work  hand  in  hand  in  establishing  the  truth 
that  creation  has  been  a  long-continued  and  natural  process. 

When  Darwin  forced  upon  humanity  the  consideration  of  the 
theory  of  evolution,  he  was  for  a  long  time  stoutly  opposed  by  a 
large  part  of  the  Christian  world.  Naturally  this  theory  was 
resisted  by  those  who  held  that  the  Bible  contains  the  first  and 
final  utterance  of  God  ;  that  the  Old  Testament  is  full  of  pre- 
dictions of  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  that  the  stories  of 
creation,  the  fall  of  man,  and  the  existence  of  a  personal  devil  are 
to  be  accepted  as  divine  revelations.  These  views  and  all  creeds 
founded  upon  them  are  shattered  beyond  repair  by  Darwin's  work; 
for  evolution  takes  up  the  Bible  and  Jesus,  w^ho  is  the  heart  of 
the  Bible,  into  a  grander,  all-inclusive  revelation. 

Let  us  examine,  for  a  mom.ent,  the  changed  aspect  of  the  uni- 
verse that  evolution  has  set  forth.  Behold  the  expanse  of  the  uni- 
verse! A  ray  of  light,  which  travels  one  hundred  and  eighty-six 
thousand  miles  in  a  second,  requires  fifty  years  to  travel  from  the 
North  Star  to  our  earth :  it  requires  four  million  years  to  reach 
our  earth  from  the  farthest  known  star.  In  the  universe,  as  now 
known  to  astronomers,  there  are  not  less  than  twenty  million  suns, 
each  the  centre  of  a  planetary  system  at  least  as  important  as  our 
own.  Statistics  now  reveal  to  us  at  least  one  hundred  and  sixty 
million  stars,  and  at  least  one  thousand  nebulae,  each  one  like 
unto  the  magnificent  Milky  Way,  which  spans  our  earthly  skies. 
The  four  million  years  during  which  the  light  now  impinging 
upon  earth  has  been  flying  straight  onward  irresistibly  implies  an 
unimaginable  period  of  millions  of  years  preceding. 


134 

Behold,  again,  the  conception  of  time  as  revealed  in  our  earth 
to  the  modern  mind !  The  science  of  evolution  has  fully  estab- 
lished the  fact  that  man  has  existed  upon  the  earth  not  less  than 
fift}'  thousand  years.  For  that  period  he  has  existed  in  a  physical 
form  practically  as  good  as  that  he  possesses  to-day.  We  can 
merely  imagine  the  vast  period  preceding,  during  which  his  phys- 
ical ancestors  were  making  good  their  stand  upon  earth.  Evolu- 
tion has  established  the  fact  that  at  least  three  hundred  and  fiftj' 
million  years  have  been  required  for  the  development  of  the  earth 
into  conditions  which  would  support  life. 

Consider,  finally,  the  new  conception  of  law  that  evolution  be- 
stows! The  modern  mind  is  convinced  that  there  is  a  natural 
cause  back  of  every  fact  or  condition,  and  that  the  processes  of 
Nature  have  alwaj^s  been  uniform  in  character  and  free  from  any 
unnatural  change  that  could  be  termed  a  miracle.  Evolution  not 
merely  leaves  no  place  for  miracles  but  magnificently  sets  forth 
uniformity  and  the  orderly  process  of  cause  and  effect  as  the  grand- 
est conceivable  method  of  creation  and  development. 

What,  now,  is  the  application  of  this  conception  of  evolution 
to  religion  ?  Is  there  any  place  left  for  God  ?  Let  me  say  frankly 
that,  if  there  were  no  place  left  for  God,  I,  for  one,  should  be  con- 
vinced that  evolution  is  all  a  mistake.  So  long  as  any  person 
feels  that  the  acceptance  of  this  brilliant  modern  doctrine  threatens 
his  faith  in  God  and  his  love,  let  that  person  persistently  reject 
the  new  idea.  It  is  more  important  to  believe  in  God,  it  is  living 
nearer  to  the  truth  to  believe  in  God,  than  to  follow  any  line 
of  thought,  howsoever  enticing,  which  makes  it  impossible  for  one 
to  believe  in  God.  I  am  happy  in  making  this  statement,  be- 
cause personally  I  have  found  the  doctrine  of  evolution  to  be 
the  greatest  help  that  I  have  ever  received  in  the  strengthening 
of  my  faith  in  God.  Evolution  comes  as  a  distinct  reinforcement 
of  religion,  not  as  a  thought  destined  to  supplant  faith.  I  cannot 
undertake  to  speak  for  all  evolutionists  or  for  all  believers  in  God. 
Let  me  content  myself  with  setting  forth  before  j'ou  my  own  way 
of  combining  the  knowledge  of  God  and  the  use  of  evolutionary 
thought. 

Let  us  start,  then,  with  God,  a  spiritual  being  existing  apart 


135 

from  all  form  and  consisting  of  perfect  love,  wisdom,  and  right- 
eousness. God,  the  Eternal  Spirit,  who  has  forever  existed,  and 
to  whom  time  is  nothing,  cannot  conceivably  have  an  opponent. 
There  can  be  no  power  that  is  able  to  defy  him  or  interfere  with 
his  thought  and  work.  There  is  no  standing  ground  for  Satan. 
Conceive  of  such  a  God  as  this  existing  alone.  His  very  nature 
demands  companionship,  appreciation.  He  must  needs  express 
himself:  unexpressed  intelligence  is  futile.  God  must  act:  he 
must  create.  To  such  a  being  creation  is  self-expression,  and  that 
self-expression  must  go  on  until  it  produces  minds  that  are  com- 
petent to  receive  and  understand  the  expressions  of  the  Almighty. 
Thus  in  the  very  being  of  God  the  need  existed  for  a  "  world  of 
men," —  some  creatures,  at  any  rate,  to  whom  God  could  speak, 
and  who  should  be  his  loving  companions  forever. 

Furthermore,  there  has  always  existed,  in  my  imagination,  the 
eternal  possibility  of  God's  expressing  himself,  and  the  teachings 
of  modern  science  provide  this  eternal  possibility.  If  I  under- 
stand the  scientific  thought  of  the  time,  it  is  reasonable  to  believe 
that,  underlying  all  forms  of  matter,  there  is  a  mysterious  sub- 
stance called  ether,  which  is  eternal  in  its  existence  and  limitless 
in  its  extent ;  which,  further,  is  in  itself  motionless  and  without 
friction.  This  conception  of  the  physical  universe  holds  that 
every  smallest  particle  of  matter  consists  of  variously  arranged 
vortex  rings  of  ether.  I  am  compelled  to  believe,  therefore,  that 
the  beginning  of  the  universe  was  at  the  instant  when  there  first 
appeared  in  the  limitless  and  motionless  expanse  of  ether  motion, 
which  consisted  of  whirling  vortex  rings,  infinitesimally  minute. 

What  should  start  that  first  motion  ?  Nothing  less  than  the 
thought  of  God.  Ether  was  God's  opportunity;  and  creation, 
from  the  beginning  until  now,  has  been  the  process  whereby  God 
has  used  his  opportunity  for  self-expression  and  the  putting  forth 
of  power.  God,  the  Eternal  Mind,  thought  motion;  and  the 
thought  produced  motion. 

So  divine  self-expression  went  on  through  unimaginable  periods 
of  time,  building  up  atoms  from  vortex  rings,  and  physical  ele- 
ments out  of  atoms ;  producing  gases  and  heat  and  light,  and, 
finally,  enormous  masses  of  fiaming  gas. 

I  cannot  take  time  to  describe  the  processes  so  wonderfully  set 


136 

forth  in  astronomical  and  geological  works,  whereby,  through 
cooling  and  centrifugal  force,  mass  after  mass  was  thrown  off 
from  central  whirling  bodies,  each  to  produce,  in  the  process  of 
development,  systems,  suns,  stars,  and  worlds.  I  cannot  follow 
the  cooling  of  each  globe,  until  it  became  a  solid  body  giving  forth 
light  and  heat.  I  can  but  remind  you  that  out  of  this  wonderful 
process  our  little  earth  at  last  came  into  existence,  and  in  the 
course  of  the  three  hundred  and  fifty  million  years  of  its  modern 
development,  found  itself  prepared  for  the  support  of  life. 

And  how  came  life  to  start  upon  the  earth?  No  man  knows. 
As  a  man  of  religion,  I  believe  that  it  came,  as  the  whole  creative 
process  before  had  come,  out  of  the  orderly  and  inevitable  course 
of  the  thinking  of  God.  At  some  critical  moment  God  was  able 
to  think  life,  as  an  inevitable  result  of  the  conditions  of  creation 
that  had  led  up  to  that  instant.  From  that  time  on,  this  life  has 
proceeded  with  an  orderly  development  like  that  which  has  ruled 
in  the  material  universe.  Forms  of  life  have  followed  one 
another,  each  one  the  natural  result  of  the  preceding  one,  and  each 
one  a  perfect  expression  of  a  new  thought  of  God. 

Through  form  after  form  God  has  sent  forth  his  thought,  until 
at  last  he  brought  forth  man.  Human  life,  in  all  its  aspects,  is 
part  of  the  natural  order  of  things.  In  his  physical  form  man  is 
a  product  of  some  lower  creature.  Let  me  say,  incidentally,  that 
it  is  not  thought  by  evolutionists  that  mankind  has  descended  from 
the  apes  and  monkeys.  On  the  contrary,  the  physical  ancestors  of 
mankind  are  wholly  unknown.  Evolution  simply  teaches  that 
both  man  and  the  apes  have  sprung  from  some  common  ancestor, 
the  exact  nature  of  which  is  unknown.  All  that  we  can  at  present 
say  of  our  origin  is  that  at  some  remote  time,  more  than  fifty 
thousand  years  ago,  there  appeared,  in  the  process  of  physical  de- 
velopment, a  creature,  or  a  little  group  of  creatures,  possessed  of 
exceptional  qualities, —  qualities  that  enabled  them  to  stand  erect 
and  to  begin  to  articulate  speech.  Man  was  in  sight  when  these 
ancestors  of  his  felt  within  them  a  power  of  orderly  thought,  which 
could  make  them  masters  over  all  other  creatures.  Man  was  born 
when  this  power  of  thought  became  great  enough  to  express  itself. 
In  short,  man  was  created  when  he  became  a  living  soul. 

With  man  evolution  became  a  moral  and  spiritual  process.     It 


137 

became  a  process  which  is  intelligible  to  itself,  as  well  as  to  God. 
God  now  has  reached  the  culmination  of  his  creation,  having  pro- 
duced beings  who  can  read  his  thoughts  and  appreciate  them. 
God,  who  has  hitherto  simply  expressed  himself,  henceforth  ex- 
presses himself  to  intelligences  that  respond  and,  in  their  turn, 
express  themselves  to  God.  Man  becomes  the  discoverer  of  truth. 
Man  takes  control  of  his  own  life,  builds  up  a  social  order,  estab- 
lishes civilizations,  and  develops  systems  of  thought  and  religion. 

Everything  that  concerns  human  life  comes  to  pass  and  finds  its 
development  under  the  same  magnificent  uniform  process  which 
we  call  evolution.  Take  our  Bible,  for  instance.  It  can  no  longer 
be  looked  upon  as  a  law  from  above,  written  miraculously  by  the 
finger  of  God,  as  upon  tables  of  stone,  and  set  forth,  to  an  ig- 
norant age,  as  a  divine  law  whereby  man  shall  live.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  can  now  see  that  the  Bible  is  one  of  many  human  at- 
tempts at  self-expression.  Mankind  has  produced  the  Bible  as 
God  produced  the  universe,  by  a  natural  process  of  setting  forth 
experience  and  thought.  There  came  a  time  in  the  development 
of  mankind  when  one  group  of  men  in  Eastern  lands  grew  nearer 
to  God  in  their  thoughts  than  men  had  done  before,  found  by  ex- 
perience certain  laws  of  conduct,  certain  helpful  methods  of  reli- 
gious expression,  certain  visions  of  the  relation  that  should  exist 
between  man  and  God.  In  that  group  of  devout  men,  one  after 
another  appeared  competent  to  put  into  words  the  experience 
and  aspirations  of  the  Hebrew  nation ;  and  so  they  wrote 
our  Bible,  out  of  the  natural  experience  of  mankind  and  the  intelli- 
gent thought  of  the  times. 

This  removes  from  the  Bible  all  supernatural  power  and  causes 
it  to  stand  among  men  upon  its  own  merits.  Studying  the  Bible 
thus,  we  discover  it  to  possess  the  defects  of  the  age  which  pro- 
duced it,  as  well  as  the  merits.  Studied  thus,  the  Bible  still  holds 
its  ground  as  the  most  helpful  compilation  of  religious  literature 
which  human  experience  has  thus  far  set  forth. 

I  hardly  need  add  that,  to  the  evolutionist,  Jesus  came  by  the 
same  process  that  has  produced  the  Bible.  He,  too,  is  of  purely 
human  origin  and  nature,  and  an  expression  of  human  experience. 
There  came  a  time,  in  the  steady  advance  of  things  human,  when 
the  grandest  voice  of  the  ages  could  speak,  setting  forth  the  fun- 


138 

damental  ideas  of  religion.  Jesus  was  that  voice,  and  he  must  re- 
main for  all  time  the  foundation  of  the  moral  and  religious  life ; 
for  in  him,  at  last,  mankind  expressed  perfectly  the  relation  be- 
tween man  and  God.  He  understood  God,  and  his  life  inspires 
us  to  understand  God.     He  is  the  world's  greatest  leader. 

What,  then,  to  the  evolutionist,  becomes  of  evil  and  sin?  If 
there  be  no  devil,  and  if  the  entire  creation  has  been  the  inevitable 
result  of  orderly  processes  of  an  Infinite  Mind,  then  all  conditions 
that  exist  must  be  a  part  of  that  process,  however  terrible  and 
desolating  they  may  be.  Ves,  that  is  precisely  the  evolutionary 
point  of  view.  What  we,  in  our  impatience,  our  desire  for  the 
perfect  life,  call  evils  and  calamities  are  inevitable  in  a  growing 
world.  The  universe  is  merely  in  a  stage  of  development.  It  is 
as  good  as  it  could  be  made  up  to  this  moment.  It  must  pass 
through  every  stage,  in  order  to  win  to  the  end.  If  we  are  to 
have  a  world  capable  of  producing  life,  it  has  to  be  made  just  as 
this  world  has  been  made,  by  processes  of  law,  which  involve  tem- 
porary harshness  in  the  working  out  of  ultimate  good.  The  earth 
must  shrink  and  throw  off  its  heat,  to  maintain  the  conditions 
that  support  life.  This  process  cannot  take  place  without  those 
readjustments  of  the  surface  of  the  earth  which  we  call  earth- 
quakes even  though  earthquakes  involve  occasional  calamity  for 
man  and  his  works.  Man  is  better  served  by  this  earth  than  he 
could  be  by  any  other. 

Look  for  a  moment,  also,  at  the  moral  development  of  man- 
kind. Development  is  better  than  stationary  goodness.  Char- 
acter, to  be  of  any  value,  has  to  be  won.  The  child  that  has  never 
been  tempted  is  a  child  of  wholly  unknown  capacity:  we  cannot 
call  it  good.  We  become  good  only  when  we  have,  one  by  one, 
chosen  good  things  as  against  evil.  Character  is  always  a  matter 
of  personal  decision.  It  rests  upon  choice, —  the  right  choice. 
This  means  that  there  must  always  be  the  possibility  of  doing 
wrong.  Without  that  there  could  be  no  meaning  in  goodness; 
certainly,  no  progress  in  righteousness.  Sin  is  still  in  our  midst 
because  we  so  often  make  wrong  decisions,  not  because  God  put 
it  here  for  the  discipline  of  our  souls.  He  gives  us  the  power  of 
choice.     Our  growth  in  character  springs  from  our  choice.     Sin 


139 

stays  here  so  long  as  we  continue  to  choose  unwisely  or  selfishly 
amid  the  possibilities  of  life. 

Finally,  let  me,  as  a  religious  man,  claim  that  I  find  in  evolution 
the  best  argument  for  immortality  that  has  ever  come  to  me.  Who 
is  not  oppressed  by  the  imperfections  of  the  present  time?  Rest- 
ing upon  all  human  life  are  limitations,  troubles,  and  sorrows,  al- 
most too  great  to  be  endured.  We  do  not  fully  understand  the 
slowness  of  God's  creative  work.  We  are  oppressed  by  the  heavi- 
ness of  the  burdens  that  come  to  many  of  his  children;  and  we 
are  all  of  us,  sooner  or  later,  brought  to  the  mood,  almost  of 
despair,  which  led  Tennyson  to  say: — 

"  O,  yet   we  trust   that   somehow  good 
Will  be  the  final  goal  of  ill, 
To  pangs  of  nature,  sins  of  will, 
Defects  of  doubt  and  taints  of  blood ; 

"  That  nothing  walks  with  aimless  feet ; 
That  not  one  life  shall  be  destroyed, 
Or  cast  as  rubbish  to  the  void, 
When  God  hath  made  the  pile  complete. 

"So  runs  my  dream;  but  what  am  I? 

An  infant  crying  in  the  night: 

An  infant  crying  for  the  light: 

And  with  no  language  but  a  cry." 

No  language  but  a  cry!  Ah,  but  the  power  that  there  is  in  a 
human  cry!  The  power  that  there  is  in  a  baby's  cry,  when  it 
reaches  the  mother's  tender  heart,  the  power  there  is  in  mankind's 
cry  for  justice! 

Hear  my  cry,  O  God.  I  am  a  prehistoric  barbarian.  I  have 
been  born  under  limited  and  cruel  conditions.  I  have  never 
grasped  the  thought  of  a  loving  and  only  God.  I  live  amid 
bloodshed  and  cruel  selfishness.  Ages  are  yet  to  pass  upon  earth 
before  Jesus  and  holy  men  like  him  reveal  to  men  the  real  nature 
of  the  heavenly  Father.  Am  I  to  die  and  pass  out  of  existence, 
ignorant  of  all  that  future  years  of  earth  shall  reveal? 

Hear  my  cry,  O  God.  I  am  a  negro.  I  am  doomed  on  earth 
to  a  restricted  sphere.     Many  scorn  me  because  of  mv  color  and 


140 

my  ignorance.  I  am  shut  out  from  the  larger  and  finer  possibili- 
ties of  human  life.  I  am  not  considered  worthy  to  stand  with 
other  men.  But,  O  God,  shall  I  never  have  equality?  Can  life 
bring  to  me  nothing  but  servitude? 

Hear  my  cry,  O  God !  I  am  a  little  girl,  an  unhappy  child, 
only  ten  years  of  age,  living  in  a  crowded  tenement  in  the  ugliest 
part  of  a  great  city.  I  cannot  see  the  sky  from  my  window.  I 
have  never  seen  a  blade  of  grass  growing.  Foul  odors  and  vicious 
associations  have  been  around  me  from  my  birth.  My  father  is 
a  drunkard,  and  did  my  mother  to  death  by  his  cruelty.  I  am 
worn  to  a  skeleton,  taking  care  of  my  little  brothers  and  sisters, 
and  enduring  myself  my  father's  brutality.  I  cringe  whenever  I 
hear  my  father's  step,  and  I  know  that  he  will  cause  my  death 
some  time.     O  God,  is  that  all  there  is  to  life  for  me? 

Hear  my  cry,  O  God!  I  am  a  cripple.  My  physical  strength 
was  taken  from  me  by  an  accident  in  a  great  mill,  where  I  was  a 
laborer.  I  had  to  work  there,  to  gain  my  living.  I  did  not  cause 
the  accident,  but  all  the  remainder  of  my  physical  life  I  must 
suffer  from  it.  I  can  no  longer  earn  my  living.  In  time  I  shall 
die,  having  had  nothing  but  torture  and  suffering  while  I  lived 
upon  earth.     O  God,  is  that  all  there  is  to  life  for  me? 

Hear  my  cry,  O  God !  I  am  a  sinner.  From  my  boyhood  I 
have  been  wilful  and  selfish.  Those  that  would  have  helped  me 
I  have  scorned ;  but,  on  the  whole,  the  conditions  of  my  life  have 
not  been  helpful.  They  have  tended,  or  have  seemed  to  tend,  to 
make  me  headstrong  and  vicious.  Justly  or  unjustly,  up  to  this 
time  I  have  done  wrong  and  have  been  a  foe  to  human  society. 
I  shall  die,  it  is  likely,  a  violent  death  some  day.  Is  that  all  there 
is  to  life  for  me? 

I,  barbarian,  negro,  unhappj^  child,  cripple,  sinner,  human  being 
limited  by  conditions  that  I  did  not  wholly  cause,  claim  justice 
from  existence.  I  claim  justice  from  God.  I  protest  against  any 
closed  doors:  I  protest  against  the  cessation  of  opportunity.  I,  who 
have  had  so  little  thus  far,  protest  against  the  bare  idea  of  a  hell 
that  could  close  upon  me  the  doors  of  opportunity.  I,  the  human 
race,  lift  up  an  eager  and  indignant  voice  against  any  final  judg- 
ment that  shall  check  the  development  of  the  moral  possibilities 
that  lie  within  me,  within  every  soul  born  into  this  world.     Every 


Hi 

soul  is  conscious  of  power,  of  capacity, —  has  some  vision,  how- 
ever dim,  of  better  things;  and  all  souls,  singly  and  together,  call 
out  to  God  for  life,  far  opportunity,  for  freedom,  for  growth. 

And  what  is  God's  answer  to  this  universal  prayer?  Simply 
this:  "  My  child,  look  about  you.  See  what  I  have  done.  Con- 
sider the  evolution  that  has  gone  on  through  ages  too  great  to  be 
understood  by  you,  until,  through  these  tremendous  processes,  you 
have  been  brought  into  being, —  you,  the  being  after  my  own  na- 
ture; the  being  who  at  last  can  hear  my  voice,  understand  my 
thinking  and  be  my  companion.  Think  how  I  have  wrought  to 
bring  you  forth,  through  the  unimaginable  ages!  And  shall  I, 
the  Lord  God  Almighty,  fail  at  last,  on  the  very  threshold  of  the 
heaven  that  I  have  been  so  long  creating?  "  Such  is  God's  illu- 
minating answer  to  the  cry  of  the  human  soul.  Let  it  be  further 
enunciated,  as  is  done  by  John  Burroughs  in  his  essay  entitled 
"  The  Long  Road,"  in  the  words,  "  When  suddenly,  in  the  day 
before  yesterday  in  the  geological  year,  a  new  and  strange  an- 
imal appears,  with  new  and  strange  powers;  separated  from  the 
others  by  what  appears  an  impassable  gulf;  less  specialized  in  his 
bodily>  powers  than  the  others,  but  vastly  more  specialized  in  his 
brain  and  mental  powers;  instituting  a  new  order  of  things  upon 
the  earth,  the  face  of  which  he  in  time  changes,  through  his  new 
gift  of  reason;  inventing  tools  and  weapons  and  language;  har- 
nessing the  phj^sical  forces  to  his  own  ends ;  and  putting  all  things 
under  his  feet, —  man,  the  wonder-worker,  the  beholder  of  the 
stars,  the  critic  and  spectator  of  creation  itself,  the  thinker  of  the 
thoughts  of  God,  the  worshipper,  the  devotee,  the  hero,  spreading 
rapidly  over  the  earth,  and  developing  with  prodigious  stride, 
when  once  fairly  launched  upon  his  career." 

Ah,  yes!  Man  is  no  new  species,  to  be  cut  off  in  the  develop- 
ment of  a  growing  universe.  Here,  at  last,  are  souls,  something 
more  enduring  than  bodies,  with  all  their  beauty,  their  forceful- 
ness.  If  we  but  prepare  the  way  for  a  lovelier  race  to  have  its 
day  and  die,  the  cost  in  pain  and  tears  is  too  great.  Pave  the 
way  of  progress,  if  you  like,  with  dead  corals  and  overthrown 
trees,  lost  paleozoic  monsters,  and  other  creatures  to  be  found 
now  only  in  the  fossils  of  the  rocks;  pave  the  way  of  progress 
with  shifting  seas,  changing  continents,  and   falling  stars, —  and 


142 

the  results  justify  the  sacrifice  and  the  change.  Pave  the  way  of 
progress,  still,  with  my  personal  strength,  my  happiness,  my  early 
death,  if  necessary.  Let  human  conditions  be  improved  by  my 
suffering  throughout  my  life;  but  do  not,  I  charge  you,  pave  the 
way  of  progress  with  my  dead  soul.  That  would  be  too  great  a 
sacrifice,  for  it  would  mean  the  cutting  off  of  limitless  possibilities 
that  lie  within  me. 

No;  the  individual  soul  is  the  object  unto  which  all  these  ages 
of  God's  work  have  tended.  A  soul  cut  off  absolutely  is  an  ir- 
reparable loss  to  God,  and  his  creation.  Dying,  whether  in  crime 
or  in  heroism,  in  defeat  or  in  victory,  in  disease,  in  calamity,  or 
in  old  age,  I  must  yet  go  on,  I  will  go  on.  My  cry  is  not  for 
earth  and  its  green  fields  and  ease,  not  for  a  place  of  golden  streets 
and  lovely  mansions, —  nothing  of  the  kind.  My  crj^  is,  and  shall 
always  be,  for  justice,  for  light,  for  knowledge,  for  opportunity, 
for  righteousness ;  and  evolution  convinces  me  that  this  cry  goes 
not  unheeded, —  is,  indeed,  but  an  expression  of  the  wonderful 
power  that  God  has  produced  in  us  by  the  process  of  evolution. 
And  so  evolution  proclaims  the  immortality  of  the  soul  with  a 
power  that  has  never  before  been  put  into  the  proclamation. 

The  modern  thought  of  evolution  has,  in  short,  increased  our 
knowledge  of  God  and  his  work,  deepened  our  conception  of  the 
possibilities  of  our  own  lives,  enlarged  our  patience  and  our  hope. 
It  has  given  us  the  open  mind,  and  filled  that  mind  with  vision. 
It  has  broadened  our  faith,  making  that  faith  reasonable.  It  has 
given  us  the  spirit  of  tolerance,  whereby  we  comprehend  the  truth 
that  is  expressed  in  all  religions,  all  being  the  product  of  human 
experience  and  inevitable  conditions.  Evolution  has  become  the 
modern  method  of  religion,  whether  that  religion  be  Christian, 
Jewish,  or  any  other.  God's  endless  work  has  begun ;  it  is  going 
on;  it  will  go  on  forever.  And  since  man  has  entered  into  it  man 
has  been  co-operating  with  God, —  will  co-operate  with  God  for- 
ever. 


143 


THE  BIBLE  IN  MODERN  LIFE 

RABBI    DAVID    PHILIPSON,    D.D.,    OF    CINCINNATI,    PRESIDENT    CEN- 
TRAL  CONFERENCE   OF   AMERICAN    RABBIS 

The  past  century  has  witnessed  the  birth  of  a  new  heaven  and 
a  new  earth.  Scientific  discovery  and  invention  have  changed 
the  front  of  the  universe.  A  veritable  revelation  has  taken  place 
in  all  the  departments  of  life  and  thought,  political,  educational, 
social,  industrial,  economic,  religious.  Values  have  been  changed, 
standards  have  been  readjusted,  view-points  have  shifted.  Many 
things  that  the  fathers  considered  of  supreme  importance  are  re- 
garded now  almost  a  negligible  quantity  and  matters  whereon 
the  fathers  laid  little  stress  loom  large  on  the  horizon  of  contem- 
poraneous society.  To  all  intents  and  purposes  there  is  a  greater 
interval  between  this  year  and  its  sister  of  one  hundred  years  ago 
than  there  was  between  that  year  1809  and  its  sister  of  one  thou- 
sand years  earlier. 

Mankind  has  travelled  an  enormous  distance  during  this  cen- 
tury in  all  things  that  pertain  to  man  as  man  and  to  humanity's 
life  as  humanity's  life.  And  perhaps  in  no  province  of  human 
thought  has  there  been  so  vital  a  change  as  in  the  modern  man's 
attitude  towards  the  tremendous  issues  that  are  subsumed  under 
the  name  of  religion,  namely,  God  and  the  universe,  life  and 
death,  the  soul  and  its  future,  duty  and  destiny. 

These  teachings  are  drawn  primarily,  as  far  as  we  of  this  west- 
ern world  are  concerned,  from  that  great  collection  of  books,  the 
productions  of  the  religious  genius  of  the  Jews,  that  pass  current 
under  the  title.  The  Bible,  The  Book.  Whatever  be  the  reli- 
gious opinions  of  men  to-day,  they  hark  back  to  or  are  colored  by 
some  interpretation  of  Biblical  teaching.  And  in  the  revolution 
that  has  taken  place  in  men's  religious  thinking,  the  attitude 
towards  the  Bible  has  been  involved  chiefly.  Nor  is  our  modern 
age  peculiar  in  this.  Whenever  there  has  been  a  great  change  in 
religious  opinion  among  the  peoples  living  under  the  Jewish  and 
Christian   dispensations,  the  Bible  has  been   in  some  manner  or 


144 

other  intimately  and  closely  connected  therewith.  When  Chris- 
tianity finally  broke  away  from  Judaism,  and  those  unique  teach- 
ings whereby  it  was  differentiated  especially  from  the  mother  re- 
ligion became  dominant,  viz.:  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  his  miracu- 
lous incarnation,  his  messiahship,  his  resurrection,  an  interpretation 
of  Biblical  passages  was  resorted  to  altogether  different  from  the 
original  meaning.  Notably  were  passages  in  the  prophetical  writ- 
ings invested  with  a  significance  as  foretelling  the  life  and  experi- 
ences of  Jesus  which  could  impossibly  have  been  in  the  thought 
of  the  original  writers.  By  a  forced  exegesis,  words  of  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Hosea,  Zachariah,  the  psalmists  were  so  applied  as 
to  supply  the  needed  authoritative  basis  whereon  to  build  the 
theolog}^  of  the  new  religion.  The  differences  among  the  many 
sects  in  early  Christianity  are  in  great  part  due  to  differences  in 
the  interpretation  of  some  Biblical  passage  or  other.  When  the 
great  crisis  in  the  history  of  Christianity  came  that  resulted  in 
the  rise  of  Protestantism  it  was  again  the  attitude  towards  the 
Bible  that  was  largely  involved.  The  church  tradition  as  it  had 
grown  up  in  Catholicism  was  vigorously  opposed  by  the  Protest- 
ant leaders,  Luther,  Calvin  and  the  others  who  advanced  the 
thesis  of  the  right  of  individual  interpretation  of  the  Bible  word. 
Again  upon  the  basis  of  varied  individual  interpretations,  the  dif- 
ferent Protestant  sects  have  been  founded.  Always  and  all  the 
time  it  has  been  the  interpretation  of  the  Biblical  teachings  that  has 
been  the  deciding  factor  in  days  of  great  religious  unrest  and 
revolution.  Hence,  when  we  ask  what  of  the  place  of  the  Bible 
in  these  latter  days  of  religious  change  and  upheaval  which  are  as 
significant  as  any  in  past  times,  if  not  more  so,  we  are  amply 
justified  in  our  question  for  the  attitude  towards  the  Bible  is  the 
telling  measure  of  the  religious  temper  of  the  age. 

There  are  millions  to-day  who  look  upon  the  Bible  in  the  same 
light  as  past  generations  have  done.  Such  believe  in  the  doctrine 
of  plenary  inspiration,  viz. :  that  every  word  was  spoken  by  God 
and  taken  down  by  the  writer,  who  was  the  agent  through  whom 
the  divine  word  was  imparted  to  human  kind.  For  them  every 
word  in  the  Bible  is  of  equal  weight  with  every  other.  There  is 
no  distinction  between  greater  or  less.  Such  are  untroubled  by 
the  peculiar  problem  which  we  have  in  mind  when  we  think  of 


145 

the  relation  of  modern  thought  to  the  Bible.  They  either  recon- 
cile to  their  satisfaction  the  apparent  contradictions  between  Bib- 
lical statements  and  the  modern  outlook,  as  did  Gladstone,  and 
speak  as  did  he  of  the  impregnable  rock  of  Hol_v  Scripture,  or 
they  place  the  Bible  in  a  category  by  itself  and  do  not  permit 
themselves  to  question  any  of  its  words  whatsoever. 

These  constitute  the  great  mass  of  communicants  of  the  ortho- 
dox churches.  But  there  is  a  great  multitude  of  thinking  men 
and  women  who  accept  without  reservation  the  whole  outlook 
upon  life  and  the  universe  that  is  meant  by  the  term  modernity. 
This  outlook  given  by  modern  science  is  altogether  different  from 
that  of  the  Biblical  writers.  A  great  struggle  or  conflict  is  seem- 
ingly involved  here.  And  it  was  the  differences  between  Biblical 
teaching  and  the  results  of  scientific  research  that  first  made  acute 
the  question  of  the  attitude  of  modern  man  towards  the  Bible. 
When  Galileo  proclaimed  his  theory  of  the  earth's  motion  around 
the  sun,  a  theory  incompatible  with  the  Biblical  view,  the  strong 
arm  of  the  Church  forced  his  recantation.  But  those  days  are 
happily  past  when  brute  force  of  any  kind,  be  it  lay  or  clerical, 
can  put  its  mailed  fist  on  the  truth  seeker  and  compel  his  silence. 
Hence  when  in  the  heyday  of  early  scientific  discovery  in  the 
opening  decades  of  the  modern  age,  the  results  of  geological  re- 
search as  to  the  age  of  the  world  came  into  sharp  conflict  with 
the  teachings  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  astronomy's  irre- 
futable proofs  of  the  earth's  place  in  the  solar  system  discredited 
the  geocentric  view  of  the  Biblical  writers,  and  anthropology 
taught  the  doctrine  of  the  rise  of  man  as  against  the  New  Testa- 
ment teaching  of  his  fall,  and  the  whole  body  of  modern  scientific 
truth  declaimed  against  the  possibility  of  the  interruption  of  the 
reign  of  natural  law  as  necessitated  by  the  miracles  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New,  there  was  little  wonder  that  the  idea 
grew  up  that  there  was  an  irreconcilable  conflict  between  the 
Bible  and  modern  thought  and  life.  The  famous  catchword  was 
coined  "  the  conflict  between  science  and  religion,"  which  really 
meant  the  conflict  between  the  Biblical  view  of  the  origin  of  all 
things  and  the  modern  scientific  view.  Hosts  ranged  themselves 
on  either  side  and  the  contest  waged  fierce  and  bitter.  Church- 
men  felt   that    religion    itself   was   at  stake,    and   scientists  were 


146 

dubbed  atheists,  because  they  denied  the  traditional  views  founded 
on  Bibh'cal  teaching.  The  smoke  of  the  battle  has  cleared  and 
we  are  in  a  better  position  to-day  than  were  those  in  the  thick  of 
the  fight  to  judge  of  the  merits  of  the  question.  The  catchword 
"  the  conflict  between  science  and  religion  "  was  of  brilliant  mint- 
age, but  like  so  many  popular  phrases  it  expressed  what  lay  merely 
on  the  surface  and  did  not  penetrate  into  the  realities  of  the 
issue.  There  has  never  been  a  more  unfortunate  mistake  than 
this.  I  use  the  word  "  mistake  "  advisedly,  for  the  whole  notion 
of  such  a  conflict  rests  upon  a  misconception.  Both  religion  and 
science  present  different  forms  of  the  search  after  truth.  Each 
has  its  own  domain,  and  instead  of  clashing  with  one  another  they 
can  be  and  should  be  mutually  helpful.  There  has  never  been 
a  clearer  statement  on  this  subject  than  that  made  by  John  Fiske, 
when  he  said:  "  When  we  look  beneath  the  surface  of  things,  we 
see  that  in  reality  there  has  never  been  any  conflict  between  reli- 
gion and  science  nor  is  any  reconciliation  called  for  where  har- 
mony has  always  existed.  The  real  historical  conflict,  which  has 
thus  been  curiously  misnamed,  has  been  the  conflict  between  the 
more  crude  opinions  of  the  science  of  an  earlier  age  and  the  less 
crude  opinions  belonging  to  the  science  of  a  later  age.  In  the 
course  of  this  conflict  the  more  crude  opinions  have  been  usually 
defended  in  the  name  of  religion,  and  the  less  crude  opinions  have 
invariably  won  the  victory;  but  religion  itself,  which  is  not  con- 
cerned with  opinion  but  with  the  aspiration  which  leads  us  to  strive 
after  a  purer  and  holier  life,  has  seldom  or  never  been  attacked." 
Accepting  this  statement  as  fair  and  true,  as  I  believe  all  religious 
liberals  will,  we  come  to  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  Bible, 
which  contains  the  classical  expressions  of  religious  aspiration,  to 
modern  scientific  thought. 

The  Bible  is  the  text  book  of  religion,  not  of  science.  The 
Biblical  writers  stood  on  the  level  of  their  age  as  far  as  natural 
knowledge  went.  It  was  not  their  purpose  nor  their  mission  to 
teach  scientific  but  religious  truth.  The  meanlngfulness  of  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  lies  not  in  the  teaching  of  a  creation  in 
six  days,  not  quite  six  thousand  years  ago,  but  in  the  high  pro- 
nouncement that  One  God  is  the  creator  of  all  things  and  that 
man  stands  at  the  summit  of  the  sublunar  creation.     And  so  in  all 


147 

else.  We  have  grown  very  clear  in  this  matter.  We  have  learned 
to  distinguish  between  the  eternal  and  the  transitory  elements  in 
the  Bible.  The  prophets  were  men  of  their  time,  as  well  33 
geniuses  who  pierced  to  the  heart  of  eternal  truths.  In  the 
great  consecration  chapter  of  Isaiah,  we  find  all  the  im.agery 
of  a  crude  angelology,  in  the  acceptance  of  which  this  soaring 
genius  was  at  one  with  his  contemporaries ;  but  this  was  merely 
the  setting  for  the  enunciation  of  the  overpowering  pronounce- 
ments of  the  holiness  of  God  and  the  consecration  of  man  to  a 
great  mission,  and  of  the  further  everlasting  truths  that  spiritual 
obtuseness  leads  a  people  to  destruction,  but  that  there  will  al- 
ways be  the  saving  remnant  of  the  righteous  that  survives  the 
catastrophe. 

In  modern  life  as  shaped  by  modern  thought  then  the  Bible 
retains  the  place  it  has  always  held  as  the  storehouse  of  those  com- 
pelling religious  truths  that  have  been  and  still  are  expressive  of 
the  highest  reaches  of  the  soul.  No  men  have  looked  with  clearer 
vision  into  the  heart  of  life's  mysteries  and  into  the  chambers  of 
eternity  than  did  the  prophets  and  seers  of  Israel.  The  psalm- 
ists uttered  the  exquisite  words  of  trustful  faith  that  have  brought 
comfort  to  untold  millions,  the  prophets  gave  voice  to  those  ideals 
of  righteousness,  justice  and  peace  towards  which  men  are  still 
striving.  Herein  lies  the  worth  and  value  of  the  Bible  for  mod- 
ern man  as  it  has  lain  for  all  the  generations  past.  The  value 
of  the  Bible  does  not  rise  and  fall  with  the  changing  beliefs  of 
different  ages  which  we  subsume  under  the  general  term  "  natural 
science  " ;  its  worth  lies  in  the  eternal  messages  proclaiming  the 
spirit  of  God  in  man  and  the  universe.  The  highest  words  on 
this  supreme  theme  are  found  in  the  Bible;  these  are  of  everlasting 
significance  and  are  afifected  neither  by  the  exigencies  of  time  nor 
place,  nor  by  the  changing  character  of  human  knowledge. 
Whatever  heights  of  discovery  and  invention  man's  mind  may 
scale,  whatever  new  vistas  of  knowledge  future  investigations 
may  disclose,  these  will  affect  only  the  temporary  teachings  of  the 
Biblical  books  but  not  the  eternally  significant  doctrines  contained 
in  such  brilliant  flashes  of  spiritual  insight  as  the  golden  text  of  the 
Old  Testament:  "  He  has  told  thee,  O  Man,  what  is  good,  and 
that  the  Lord  requires  of  thee  nothing  but  to  do  justly,  to  love 


148 

mercy  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God,"  or  the  polden  text 
of  the  New  Testament:  "Do  unto  others  as  you  would  have 
them  do  unto  you." 

From  what  has  been  said  It  will  have  become  evident  that  in 
the  modern  view  of  the  Bible  held  by  religious  liberals  of  all  creeds 
some  parts  of  the  volume  are  of  far  greater  spiritual  potency 
than  others.  The  researches  of  Biblical  students,  known  scien- 
tifically as  Biblical  criticism,  have  proven  be^'ond  the  peradventure 
of  a  doubt,  that  the  Biblical  books  represent  a  growth  in  religious 
experience.  The  people  of  Israel  passed  through  various  stages 
of  religious  development ;  these  are  reflected  in  the  pages  of  the 
Bible.  This  accepted  finding  of  the  neAver  knowledge  could  not 
but  affect  the  attitude  towards  the  Bible.  The  fantastic  theories 
of  some  erratic  critics  who  represent  the  extravagances  of  the 
extreme  left  of  Biblical  students,  may  amuse  us,  but  they  cannot 
undermine  the  sound  basis  of  the  study.  Hence,  it  may  be  said 
that  for  those  who  have  an  open  mind  it  has  become  abundantly 
clear  that  the  Biblical  books  have  been  written  by  men  of  varied 
powers  and  represent  widely  varying  degrees  of  spiritual  insight. 
There  Is  an  almost  impassible  gulf,  for  example,  between  the 
writer  of  the  book  of  Esther  and  the  writer  of  the  fifty-first 
psalm;  the  spirit  pervading  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  Is  altogether 
dififerent  from  that  of  the  book  of  Leviticus;  the  book  of  Jeremiah 
is  of  Infinitely  greater  spiritual  significance  than  is  the  book  of 
Joshua.  This  recognition  of  differing  degrees  of  spirituality,  re- 
ligiosity, or  call  it  what  you  will,  among  the  Biblical  writers,  has 
as  a  matter  of  course  produced  far-reaching  results.  It  makes 
impossible  the  BIbllolatry  of  past  days.  It  has  displaced  the 
fetishlstic  attitude  towards  the  Bible.  It  has  substituted  the  doc- 
trine of  a  natural  growth  along  human  lines  for  the  supernatural 
character  of  the  Biblical  books.  It  has,  it  Is  true,  divested  the 
Bible  of  that  place  in  popular  regard  which  has  amounted  to  idol- 
atry, but  It  has  given  us,  in  place  thereof,  that  better  possession, 
a  Bible  of  humanity,  a  Bible  which  we  recognize  as  our  very  own, 
a  Bible  to  which  we  go,  not  as  to  a  magician  in  the  attitude  of 
superstitious  awe,  expecting  to  receive  an  Instantaneous  solution 
to  each  and  any  problem  that  Is  harassing  us,  but  a  Bible  In  which 
we  seek  the  experience  of  divinely  Inspired  men  In  situations  like 


149 

unto  those  in  which  we  often  find  ourselves,  and  draw  joy  and 
comfort  from  their  words,  veritable  wells  of  salvation. 

The  Bible,  in  a  word,  is  a  collection  of  documents,  written  by 
men  for  men,  during  a  period  of  many  centuries.  These  men 
were  of  widely  differing  powers;  they  run  the  gamut  from  the 
prosaic  chronicler  to  the  prophet  of  divine  inspiration.  In  the 
older  supernatural  view  of  the  Bible,  the  genealogical  tables  were 
of  as  great  potency  as  the  command  "  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thy  self,"  for  one  as  the  other  was  the  word  of  God  and  in  the 
word  of  God  there  can  be  no  great  and  no  small ;  but  in  our 
ne\ver  view  we  are  confronted  with  no  such  difficulty;  "  thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  "  is  the  utterance  of  an  inspired  soul 
and  is  of  eternal  significance;  the  genealogical  tables  are  a  simple 
historical  record  of  a  painstaking  chronicler  of  past  events,  but  has 
no  especial  spiritual  significance.  The  newer  view  of  the  Bible  is 
that  of  the  man  who  can  distinguish  be^veen  the  transitory  and  the 
eternal,  the  inspired  and  the  commonplace,  the  man  who  has 
come  into  his  divine  heritage  and  uses  his  God-given  powers  in 
searching  out  the  significance  of  this  heritage;  the  older  view  of 
the  Bible  is  that  of  the  child  that  has  not  tasted  of  the  fruit  of  the 
tree  of  knowledge;  the  unquestioning  acceptance  by  the  child  of 
the  wonderful  and  the  miraculous  gives  way  naturally  to  the 
sober  estimate  of  manhood  with  its  larger  knowledge  and  outlook ; 
such  is  the  change  which  the  modern  knowledge  of  the  production 
of  the  Biblical  books  has  wrought,  being  like  unto  the  change  which 
modern  scientific  investigation  caused  in  the  matter  of  the  accep- 
tance or  rejection  of  the  Biblical  view  of  the  universe  and  its  gov- 
ernment by  law  or  miraculous  intervention.  The  older  child-like 
view  may  seem  and  doubtless  is,  to  thousands  the  more  comforting 
and  the  by  far  less  troublesome,  but  the  newer  man-like  stand  is 
the  grander,  finer;  it  is  the  prerogative  of  our  freedom,  the  free- 
dom of  this  latter  age,  which  knows  that  although  there  are  and 
will  always  be  many  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth  that  are  not 
dreamt  of  in  our  philosophy,  yet  feels  that  it  is  our  highest  privi- 
lege to  test  all  things,  even  the  most  hallowed  traditions,  by  the 
touchstone  of  our  God-given  reason  and  our  divinely  implanted 
knowledge.  What  remains  to  us  after  such  test  is  our  ver>-  own ; 
we  have  secured,  as  a  result  of  our  latter  day  investigations  into 


150 

the  canonical  hooks,  a  Bible  as  sacred  to  us  as  was  their  Bihle  to 
our  fathers  even  though  we  view  it  through  different  eyes;  our 
Bible  is  to  us  the  the  most  precious  document  of  the  possibilities 
of  the  human  spirit;  it  shows  us  the  growth  from  the  crudest  con- 
ception of  God  to  the  highest,  from  a  God  delighting  in  the  sweet 
savor  of  Noah's  sacrifice  to  the  Omnipresent  Deity  of  the  one 
hundred  and  thirty-ninth  psalm;  it  shows  us  all  the  vicissitudes 
of  the  soul  in  all  the  relations  of  life;  it  depicts  the  ethical  devel- 
opment through  all  the  stages  of  growth  from  the  selfishness  of 
Jacob  bargaining  at  Bethel  to  the  sublime  reach  of  Amos  with  his 
great  preachment  that  privilege  implies  responsibility.  So  then, 
though  our  fathers'  positive  acceptance  of  each  and  every  word 
of  the  Bible  as  the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  therefore  immutably 
and  unchangeably  fixed,  is  no  longer  ours,  still  have  we  as  a  com- 
pensation, and  to  my  way  of  thinking,  this  latter  gain  far  out- 
weighs the  former  loss,  we  have  as  a  compensation  the  substan- 
tiation in  the  books  of  the  Bible  of  this  high  doctrine  of  the 
growth  of  man  from  lower  to  higher;  of  his  rise  from  a  crude 
beginning  to  prophetic  insight  and  of  the  development  of  the  spir- 
itual faculties,  from  finding  pleasure  in  animal  delights  to  the 
height  of  the  vision  of  universal  peace  when  swords  will  be 
beaten  into  ploughshares  and  spears  into  pruning  hooks,  and  men 
will  learn  war  no  more. 

This  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  development  in  reference 
to  the  Bible,  and  its  corollary  of  the  greater  validity  of  some  por- 
tions than  of  others,  involves  the  all  important  issue  of  the  author- 
ity of  the  Bible.  Past  generations,  both  Jewash  and  Christian, 
accepted  without  question  the  doctrine  of  the  literal  authority  of 
the  Bible.  It  was  the  final  tribunal  for  religious  and  moral  issues. 
If  a  doctrine  received  Biblical  substantiation  it  was  acceptable. 
True  this  often  brought  forth  startling  results.  Advocates  and 
opponents  of  the  same  religious  dogma,  or  moral  issue  sought  and 
found  Biblical  support  for  their  teaching.  We  have  the  assur- 
ance of  the  greatest  of  the  poets  that  even  his  Satanic  Majest>'  can 
quote  Scripture  if  necessary  to  the  furtherance  of  his  work.  There 
was  in  truth  no  teaching  so  extreme  and  no  doctrine  so  strange 
that  a  Biblical  text  was  not  made  to  do  service  in  its  cause.  This 
was  the  result  of  the  dogma  accepted  universally  of  the  supreme 


151 

authority  of  the  Bible.  The  Bible  has  spoken  —  that  ended  the 
matter.  This  meant  also  that  every  word  of  the  Bible  was  of 
equal  weight  with  every  other.  It  developed  also  that  unfortunate 
view  of  the  Bible  that  made  it  a  book  of  texts;  verses  were  torn  out 
of  their  context  and  given  an  interpretation  which  could  be  read 
into  them  only  by  violence.  But  that  made  no  difference.  It 
satisfied  the  conscience  of  the  adherent  of  the  doctrine  who  re- 
quired Biblical  authority.  An  extreme  instance  of  the  lengths 
to  which  this  was  carried  was  furnished  in  the  slavery  struggle 
in  this  country;  the  advocates  of  slavery  declared  it  a  divine  insti- 
tution and  rested  their  claim  on  Biblical  texts;  the  opf>onents  did 
the  same  and  explained  away  the  assertions  of  the  Southern  sym- 
pathizers as  best  they  could.  No  religious  sect  too  bizarre  but 
that  it  found  warrant  to  its  own  satisfaction  in  the  teaching  of 
Scripture.  In  all  these  cases  the  troubled  inquirer  might  well 
ask,  whom  shall  my  soul  believe?  It  all  resolved  itself  into  a  ques- 
tion of  interpretation.  But  with  all  this  what  stood  out  in  strong 
relief  was  the  acceptance  of  the  authority  of  the  Bible.  The  uni- 
versal acquiescence  in  this  doctrine  gave  rise  to  all  the  extrav- 
agancies to  which  reference  has  been  made.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  for  example  that  slavery  or  at  any  rate,  a  modified  slavery 
is  permitted  in  the  Bible ;  so  also  can  the  Mormon  rest  his  practice 
of  polygamy  on  Biblical  warrant;  so  were  witches  burnt  because 
this  had  Biblical  authority;  so  did  Christian  sects  wage  bitter 
contests  not  always  bloodless  because  of  different  readings  of  Bib- 
lical texts.  All  such  phenomena  were  possible  from  the  old  view 
of  the  Bible  as  an  absolute  representation  in  its  every  utterance 
of  the  teaching  of  God.  But  they  are  not  possible  according  to 
our  modern  view  as  I  have  attempted  to  set  it  forth. 

If  the  Biblical  books  represent  a  development  from  lower  to 
higher,  then  can  not  every  verse  of  the  Bible  be  cited  as  abso- 
lute authority.  The  authority  of  the  Bible  in  this  sense  has 
passed  away  from  us  forever.  We  do  not  go  to  the  Bible  as  an 
oracle,  as  did  our  fathers,  to  decide  each  and  every  perplexity 
that  may  beset  us.  You  may  remember  the  older  custom  of 
opening  the  Bible  at  random  and  finding  in  the  page  that  was 
disclosed  the  answer  to  the  perplexity  and  acting  upon  it.  This 
was  but  a  variant  of  the  ancient  heathen  practice  of  consulting 


152 

an  oracle.  It  was  a  superstitious  reverence  of  the  authority  of  the 
Bihle.  In  so  far  it  (leo:raded  rather  than  elevated  the  religious 
sense  and  made  of  the  Bible  and  its  authority  a  fetich.  If  we 
have  ceased  to  regard  the  Bible  in  this  light,  and  we  who  are  here 
assembled  in  this  convention  have  ceased  to  so  regard  it,  we 
have  substituted  for  it  something  much  more  worthy.  We  feel 
as  strongly  as  any  generation  behind  us  has  felt  that  the  Bible 
contains  the  loftiest  teachings  revealing  God  to  man  and.  the  high- 
est words  on  the  duties  of  man  in  society.  We  recognize  the  au- 
thority of  the  Bible  not  in  the  artificial  guise  of  a  text  book  forced 
to  do  service  at  each  and  every  turn,  but  in  the  lofty  sense  of  the 
intrinsic  value  of  those  of  its  portions  which  transcend  time  and 
partake  of  eternity.  We  know  for  example,  to  revert  to  an  in- 
stance already  mentioned,  that  the  Mosaic  law  countenances  slav- 
erj-,  but  this  was  an  accommodation  to  the  outlook  and  need  of 
an  early  stage  of  civilization.  W^e  can  explain  satisfactorily  per- 
haps the  reason  why  this  was  permitted  at  that  time  and  place, 
but  this  does  not  do  away  with  the  fact  that  it  was  permitted. 
We,  therefore,  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  Bible  here  is  not 
of  authoritj'  for  us  with  our  newer  and  better  view  of  the  rights 
of  all  men  to  live  their  own  life.  This  is  one  of  the  temporary 
institutions,  one  of  the  transient  features  of  Biblical  teachings. 
Not  so,  however,  with  a  word  like  "  Ye  shall  be  holy,  for  I, 
the  Lord  your  God,  am  holy  " ;  this  is  of  eternal  significance  and 
has  eternal  authority,  the  authority  of  God,  the  authority  of  truth. 
And  so  with  the  m.any  other  of  the  commands  that  are  contained 
in  the  Bible.  Here  again  we  distinguish  between  the  passing  and 
the  permanent,  between  the  local  commands  and  institutions  given 
for  a  special  land  and  a  special  time,  and  the  everlasting  words 
of  the  great  prophets  and  teachers,  who  spoke  with  the  authority 
of  the  inspiration  of  God,  and  who  will  therefore  have  authority 
for  all  time.  For  us  liberals  of  to-day,  too,  the  Bible  is  a  unique 
treasure-trove  of  inspired  religious  truth ;  we  study  it  and  con  it 
as  did  our  fathers ;  but  we  view  it  from  a  different  angle  of  vision ; 
we  revere  it  none  the  less  as  God's  word,  even  though  we  give 
this  term  a  different  connotation.  We  recognize  that  the  essen- 
tial features  of  Biblical  teaching,  viz:  the  informing  of  human 
societ}'  with  the  spirit  of  God  and  the  insistence  that  man  lives 


153 

not  by  bread  alone  but  by  that  which  proceedeth  from  that  spirit 
still  represents  and  always  will  represent  the  highest  outlook. 
The  Biblical  spirit  is  the  protagonist  of  the  ideal;  whenever  and 
wherever  crass  materialism  has  threatened  to  sap  the  best  energies 
of  society,  and  the  worship  of  mammon  and  luxury  has  weakened 
the  character  of  a  people,  the  Bible's  eternal  message  that  not  by 
might  and  not  by  strength  but  by  the  spirit  does  man  prevail,  has 
been  thundered  forth  by  the  idealists  who  have  drawn  their  in- 
spiration from  the  Biblical  source.  Herein  lies  the  undying  au- 
thority of  the  Bible;  the  authoritj'-  of  the  spirit,  the  authority  of 
righteousness.  The  "  thou  shalts  "  and  the  "  thou  shalt  nots " 
of  the  commandments  sound  as  powerfully  and  as  authoritatively 
to-day  as  ever.  They  are  the  everlasting  foundations  on  which 
we  build  ;  when  men  and  nations  have  disregarded  them,  disaster 
has  ensued.     You  may  recall  Lowell's  striking  lines: 

"  In  vain  we  call  old  notions  fudge 
And  bend  our  conscience  to  our  dealing, 
The  Ten  Commandments  will  not  budge, 
And  stealing  will  continue  stealing." 

And  here  it  is,  I  believe,  that  in  our  modern  life  the  influence 
of  the  Bible  and  the  Biblical  spirit  is  strongest.  Knowingly  or 
unknowingly  the  thousands  who  everywhere  throughout  the  world 
to-day  are  consumed  with  the  passion  for  righting  the  wrongs  of 
society  and  are  crying  and  working  for  justice  between  man  and 
man,  between  class  and  class,  are  filled  with  the  spirit  of  the  Bible. 
What  are  all  the  splendid  aspirations  of  the  hosts  of  men  and 
women  who  are  toiling  for  the  uplift  and  betterment  of  their  kind 
to-day  in  philanthropic  and  educational  movements  of  all  sorts 
but  efforts  to  make  real  the  prophet's  bidding  to  let  justice  flow  as 
water  and  righteousness  as  a  perennial  stream ;  what  are  all  the 
efforts  so  prominent  and  pronounced  to-day  at  arbitration  be- 
tween the  conflicting  claims  of  capital  and  labor,  of  corporations 
and  the  people,  of  trusts  and  the  individual  but  a  carrying  out 
of  that  command  which  like  a  red  thread  runs  through  the  Bible, 
and  is  expressed  there  in  a  hundred  wa3'^s,  all  variations  of  the 
striking  utterance  of  the  Deuteronomist  "  justice,  justice  shalt 
thou  pursue  " ;  when  has  the  consciousness  of  the  truth  of  the 


154 

Psalmist's  declaration  that  "  righteousness  exalteth  a  people  but 
sinfulness  is  a  nation's  shame  "  but  stronger  than  in  our  modem 
life  where  in  the  pulpit  and  out  of  it,  in  books  and  magazines, 
on  the  rostrum  and  in  legislative  halls,  it  is  being  declared  and 
expounded.  In  our  modern  life  the  feudal  doctrine  "  might 
makes  right  "  has  given  way  to  the  Biblical  teaching  "  right  makes 
might."  And  although  the  feudal  spirit  is  still  abroad  in  many- 
places,  although  the  robber  barons  still  ply  their  occupations  in 
many  a  line,  although  the  gospel  of  force  still  has  its  myriads  of 
followers,  although  the  nations  of  Europe  are  still  armed  camps 
and  even  in  our  land  militarism  had  its  advocates,  yet  has  the  true 
Biblical  teaching  of  the  supremacy  of  righteousness  as  the  human 
embodiment  of  God's  spirit  never  been  more  fervently  accepted 
by  a  greater  number  of  practical  idealists  than  at  present.  These 
are  striving  to  establish  the  Kingdom  of  God  on  earth  and  I  for 
one  believe  that  despite  all  the  untoward  signs  which  are  still 
with  us,  men  today  are  doing  more  towards  the  establishment  of 
that  Kingdom  than  ever  before,  for  a  larger  number  than  ever  be- 
fore are  permeated  with  the  Biblical  spirit  of  righteousness,  a  larger 
number  than  ever  before  are  recognizing  their  obligations  and  are 
feeling  the  point  of  the  great  questions  of  the  Biblical  prophet, 
"Have  we  not  all  one  Father?     Has  not  one  God  created  us?" 

THE  CHURCH  IN  MODERN  LIFE 

REV.    FRANK   OLIVER    HALL,    D.    D. 

The  church  is  undoubtedly  passing  through  a  diff.cult  and 
hazardous  period  of  her  history.  Many  think  that  she  is  passing 
out  of  history  altogether.  There  are  those  who  tell  us  that  at 
best  the  church  is  a  transiton,'^  institution,  that  it  has  no  permanent 
place  in  society,  and  is  doomed  ultimately  to  disappear  from  our 
social  life.  We  often  hear  it  stated  that  religion  is  something 
which  belongs  to  the  childhood  age  of  the  human  race;  that  as 
people  grow  more  intelligent  they  think  and  talk  and  read  less 
about  religion ;  that  this  will  continue  until  ultimately  religion 
will  have  taken  its  place  with  the  childish  belief  in  fairies  and 
hobgoblins  as  a  thing  outgrown.  Those  who  believe  in  religion 
and  tl^.e  church  fear  that  this  may  be  true;  those  who  do  not  be- 


155 

lieve  in  religion  and  the  church  hope  that  it  may  be  true;  the 
Conviction  seems  to  be  widespread  among  all  classes  and  conditions 
of  men  that,  at  any  rate,  organized  religion  is  losing  its  grip  on 
the  life  of  the  community. 

Now,  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  more  danger  that 
the  church,  in  some  form  or  other,  will  disappear,  or  that  re- 
ligion will  be  outgrown  than  that  the  home  will  be  outgrown  and 
disappear.  The  home  will  endure  because  it  lays  its  foundations 
in  the  deep  necessities  of  the  human  life.  The  home  has  grown 
out  of  the  human  heart,  and  as  long  as  the  heart  beats;  as  long 
as  a  man  looks  into  the  eyes  of  a  woman  to  find  inspiration  for  his 
own  highest  purposes  and  noblest  resolutions;  as  long  as  the  laugh 
of  a  little  child  is  sweetest  of  all  music  to  a  mother's  ears,  so 
long  the  home  will  endure.  It  may  change  its  aspects  to  meet 
the  varying  conditions  of  life,  but  the  home,  in  some  form,  in  spite 
of  trial  marriages  and  easy  divorce,  will  measure  its  duration 
only  by  the  life  of  humanity. 

So  with  religion  and  the  institutions  of  religion.  Religion  also 
has  blossomed  out  of  the  deep  necessities  of  the  human  soul.  It 
has  come  to  us  not  out  of  the  heavens,  not  out  of  the  sea,  not 
out  of  the  earth,  but  out  of  the  hopes  and  fears,  the  jo^s  and  sor- 
rows, the  most  generous  impulses  and  the  holiest  aspirations  of 
humanity's  sacred  life.  As  long  as  man,  looking  up  at  night,  gaz- 
ing into  the  depths  of  the  over-arching  sky,  and  to  the  glittering 
worlds  rolling  majestically  there,  propounds  the  question 
"  Whence?  "  as  long  as  men  stand  beside  the  open  grave  to  say  a 
last  farewell  to  some  tried  comrade  called  to  go  apart  alone,  and 
ask  the  question,  "  Whither?  "  as  long  as  any  human  soul  stands 
perplexed  within  the  dark  and  devious  roads  of  life,  where  path- 
waj^s  cross  and  all  of  happiness  depends  upon  his  choice,  and  asks 
the  question,  "Which?"  as  long  as  hideous  remorse  lays  her 
lash  upon  the  back  of  him  who  sets  his  heel  upon  the  moral  law 
until  he  cries  aloud  for  mercy  and,  seeking  to  escape,  looks  here 
and  there  and  asks  the  question,  "  How?"  so  long  will  religion 
hold  a  place  in  the  lives  of  men. 

"If  we  traverse  the  world  over,"  said  Plutarch,  "  it  is  possible 
to  find  cities  without  walls,  without  letters,  without  kings,  with- 
out wealth,   without  coin,   without   schools   and   theatres;   but   a 


r56 

city  without  a  temple  or  that  practiscth  not  worship,  prayers 
and  the  like,  no  one  ever  saw."  No  one  has  seen  such  a  city 
since  Plutarch's  time  and  we  have  explored  much  of  the  world 
since  he  wrote  that  sentence.  No  one  will  ever  discover  such  a 
city  until  men  cease  to  be  men. 

But  while  religion  itself  is  a  permanent  factor  of  human  na- 
ture the  institutions  of  religion  change  to  meet  the  varied  condi- 
tions of  human  life.  The  church  is  not  the  same  in  any  two 
ages.  The  church  of  to-day  is  not  the  church  of  yesterday,  and 
the  church  of  to-morrow  will  not  be  the  church  of  to-day.  The 
church  of  yesterday  was  theological,  its  business  was  other-worldly, 
its  function  was  to  save  people  from  dire  calamity'  in  some  other 
sphere  of  existence.  The  church  of  to-day  is  transitional.  There 
is  no  general  agreement  as  to  what  its  function  is.  We  are  grop- 
ing about  trying  to  find  a  function.  The  church  of  to-morrow  will 
probably  differ  as  much  from  the  church  of  yesterday  as  the  mod- 
ern university  settlement  does  from  the  monastery  of  the  middle 
ages,  once  useful,  now  outgrown. 

It  does  not  seem  at  all  strange  to  me  that  such  large  numbers  of 
the  people  should  have  fallen  away  from  the  church.  The  old 
motives  for  attending  church  no  longer  move  and  men  do  not 
as  yet  feel  the  force  of  other  motives. 

I  heard  Dr.  Lorimer  tell  this  story  on  himself.  When  he 
was  a  young  minister  in  a  small  community  he  was  one  Sunday 
preaching  a  sermon  on  everlasting  punishment  and  describing  as 
vividly  as  possible  the  pains  and  penalties  that  await  the  unre- 
deemed in  the  next  world.  In  the  midst  of  the  discourse  there 
Was  an  alarm  of  fire  and  several  of  his  congregation  who  be- 
longed to  the  local  fire  department  quietly  left  the  church.  The 
preacher  went  on  with  his  discourse.  Ten  minutes  later,  just 
as  he  had  reached  the  climax  of  a  vivid  description  of  the  awful 
catastrophe  that  awaits  the  unredeemed  sinner,  the  truant  mem- 
bers began  to  return  and  one  of  the  number  wishing  to  allay  the 
fears  of  the  congregation  with  reference  to  their  homes,  put  his 
hand  to  his  mouth  and  hoarsely  whispered,  "  False  alarm!  False 
alarm !  " 

Now  frankly  that  is  the  way  the  large  majority'  of  the  people 
have  come  to  feel  about  the  message  of  the  church  with  which 


157 

they  are  most  familiar.  When  Moody  represented  the  world  as 
a  wreck  and  the  church  as  a  life-boat,  and  the  business  of  the 
clergymen  and  the  revivalist  "  to  get  as  many  passengers  off  as 
possible  before  the  old  hulk  went  down,"  the  church  had  a  very 
plain  and  practical  function  to  perform.  But  if  the  world  is 
not  a  wreck,  but  a  staunch  and  seaworthy  craft  sailing  on  its  pre- 
destined way,  what  is  the  necessity  of  launching  the  life-boat? 
One  of  the  stock  illustrations  of  the  old-time  preacher  was  to 
describe  a  burning  dwelling  with  some  one  imprisoned  by  the 
flames  on  the  housetop  in  imminent  danger  of  destruction,  and 
the  hook  and  ladder  company  coming  with  a  rush  down  the 
street,  the  ladder  being  thrust  up  into  the  smoke  and  flame,  the 
brave  fireman  dashing  up  the  rounds  and  rescuing  the  victim. 
But  if  the  building  is  not  on  fire,  if  the  person  on  the  roof  is  in 
no  danger  of  being  burned,  if  all  this  is  a  false  alarm,  what  is  the 
function  of  the  hook  and  ladder  company  and  what  has  become 
of  the  occupation  of  the  fireman  ? 

Octavius  B.  Frothingham  graphically  illustrated  what  many  be- 
lieve to  be  the  present  condition  of  the  church  by  a  curious  land- 
mark in  the  vicinity  of  Boston.  "  A  gentleman  had  running 
tlirough  his  grounds  the  Middlesex  Canal.  It  divided  his  gar- 
den from  a  very  beautiful  grove  of  trees,  which  was  a  favorable 
retreat  in  the  summer  time.  Being  a  man  of  wealth,  he  spanned 
the  canal  with  a  stone  bridge  elegant  to  behold.  After  a  time 
the  railroad  superseded  the  canal.  The  waters  were  drawn  off. 
The  bed  was  filled  in,  planted  over,  covered  with  corn-fields;  but 
the  bridge  still  stands  where  it  did.  It  serves  no  purpose  as  a 
bridge ;  it  is  easier  to  walk  over  the  even  ground  than  it  is  to 
climb  its  steep  arch;  it  occupies  good  soil  for  planting;  it  with- 
draws from  use  a  quantity  of  granite;  it  is  by  no  means  orna- 
mental ;  and  its  incongruity  raises  a  smile,  not  always  inaudible, 
in  the  passers-by.  So,  to  the  apprehension  of  many,  stands  the 
church,  a  needless  relic  of  a  past  dispensation,  doing  nothing  that 
literature,  the  book,  the  magazine,  the  newspaper,  do  not  accom- 
plish a  great  deal  better;  and,  by  its  standing  where  it  does, 
causing  a  tacit  reproach,  and  being  an  actual  hindrance  to  these." 

Whether  this  is  a  fair  illustration  or  not  it  remains  a  fact  that 
the  majority  of  people  in  our  time  who  attend  church  do  so  simply 


158 

as  a  matter  of  habit.  Their  parents  believed  in  the  efficacy  of 
rehgion  and  took  their  children  to  church  with  them  in  order 
that  they  might  be  "  saved  "  from  the  terrible  penalties  that  would 
befall  those  who  did  not  profess  religion.  These  people  have 
largely  outgrown  their  parents'  ideas,  but  the  habit  persists. 
There  are  still  some  who  attend  a  church  from  the  old  motives. 
The  idea  may  be  vague  in  their  minds,  but  they  still  feel  that 
somehow  there  is  magic  efficacy  in  church-going.  If  there  is  any 
good  to  be  distributed  after  death  they  want  their  share  and  they 
knoA\^  of  no  other  distributing  center  except  the  church,  so  they 
go  there.  There  is  another  set  of  people  who  have  entered  upon 
a  larger  and  saner  idea  of  what  a  church  ought  to  be.  They  at- 
tend church  because  they  believe  in  the  institution,  are  helped  by 
the  services  and  want  to  have  a  part  in  the  work.  But  all  these 
together  are  a  minority  of  the  whole  population.  The  larger  ma- 
jority of  the  people  are  unchurched  and  this  holds  good  not  only 
in  the  city  but  the  country  and  the  world  over. 

"  The  fact  cannot  be  questioned,"  saj^s  a  recent  writer,  whose 
statements  I  abridge,  "  that  organized  Christianity  has  lost  its 
hold  on  the  masses  of  the  people."  In  England  it  is  admitted 
that  about  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  population  never  enter  a 
church  dooT.  In  Germany  the  proportion  is  still  greater.  An 
ecclesiastical  authority  assures  us  that  in  France  there  are  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  who  have  never  read  a  page  of  the  Gospels. 
Mr.  Campbell,  of  the  City  Temple  in  London,  has  recently  de- 
clared that  the  vast  mass  of  European  people  are  alienated  from 
Christianity  as  represented  by  the  churches.  As  for  our  own 
country  the  statistics  just  published  make  a  poor  showing.  The 
only  denomination  that  appears  to  have  made  any  appreciable 
gains  is  the  Christian  Science.  Only  a  small  portion  of  our  city 
populations  ever  attend  church  services.  That  these  are  not  the 
pessimistic  \iews  of  anticlerical  minds  is  shown  by  the  attitude  of 
the  church  itself.  From  all  sides  comes  the  cr}-  that  the  number 
of  candidates  for  the  ministry  is  falling  off.  Scotland  is  a  land 
given  over  to  theological  pursuits.  Yet  even  her  divinity  halls 
are  almost  empty  and  she  cannot  find  men  to  fill  her  pulpits.  The 
Presbyterian  Church  of  America  reports  that  there  are  one-third 
fewer  men   studying   for   the  ministry  of  this  church   than   there 


159 

were  ten  years  ago.  All  the  seminaries  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
mourn  the  diminution  of  the  supply  of  students.  Time  was  when 
the  most  brilliant  and  the  most  highly  gifted  young  men  felt  it 
an  honor  to  consecrate  their  powers  to  the  work  of  the  ministry. 
Law,  medicine  and  business  claim  to-day  the  best  of  our  youth. 
Whatever  the  reason,  the  fact  remains  that  the  church  as  a  vo- 
cation has  lost  its  attraction  for  our  young  men. 

Now,  what  is  the  conclusion?  Is  religion  dying  out?  Is  '. . 
taking  its  place  with  the  belief  in  fairies  and  hobgoblins,  and  is 
it  to  be  left  behind  ?  I  do  not  think  so.  There  was  never  so 
much  honest,  earnest  and  sincere  religion  in  the  lives  of  men  as 
at  the  present  moment.  Religion  is  simply  finding  a  different 
and  a  more  diverse  expression  than  it  formerly  did.  The  church 
is  not  an  end  in  itself,  but  only  a  means  to  an  end.  The  church 
is  not  synonymous  with  religion.  The  church  did  not  make  reli- 
gion. Religion  made  the  church.  Going  to  church  is  not  reli- 
gion. Singing  hymns,  chanting  psalms,  uttering  prayers  are  not 
religion.     They  are  only  an  expression  of  religion. 

There  was  a  time  when  people  did  not  go  to  church,  because 
there  was  no  church  to  go  to.  The  church  as  it  exists  to-day  is 
a  comparatively  modern  institution.  Religion  existed  before  the 
church,  it  would  continue  to  exist  if  every  church  were  to  be 
turned  into  an  automobile  garage.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  con- 
fess that  I  find  many  people  outside  the  churches,  people  who 
never  go  to  church,  quite  as  religious,  quite  as  honest  and  pure 
and  truthful,  quite  as  good  citizens  and  neighbors  and  cherishing 
quite  as  much  faith  as  many  of  the  people  inside. 

Let  us  not  make  the  mistake  of  confounding  religious  exercises 
with  religion  itself.  We  are  very  apt  to  do  that  just  as  we  con- 
stantly confound  education  with  certain  means  to  education.  We 
put  as  a  fundamental  test  of  the  crudest  education  the  ability  to 
read  and  write.  But  there  was  a  time  when  no  one  knew  how 
to  write  or  read.  Were  all  men  in  those  days  uneducated? 
And  even  later  some  of  the  world's  greatest  were  illiterate. 
Abraham  did  not  know  how  to  read.  Some  have  thought  that 
Jesus  did  not.  And  as  there  was  a  day  before  writing  was  known, 
so  there  may  come  a  day  when  it  will  be  unnecessary'.  The  per- 
fected phonograph  may  supersede  entirely  the  written  or  printed 


i6o 

page  and  our  great-grandchildren  be  spared  the  drudging  neces- 
sit>'  of  learning  through  the  eye  what  nature  obviously  intended 
should  be  obtained  through  the  ear.  Literature  may  be  pre- 
served for  future  generations  not  on  sheets  of  pap>er  manufactured 
from  wood  pulp  and  rags,  but  on  more  durable  cylinders  of 
gutta-percha.  Will  education  cease  when  reading  and  writing 
cease?  Will  religion  necessarily  cease  because  certain  methods 
by  which  we  now  express  the  religious  sentiments  are  superseded 
by  others  more  in  accord  with  the  custom  of  the  times? 

It  may  be  that  the  day  will  come  when  it  will  be  unnecessary 
that  people  should  "  assemble  themselves  together."  It  may  be 
that  the  people  of  the  future  will  read  their  sermons  or  the  equiv- 
alent instead  of  going  to  hear  the  preacher,  as  they  have  come 
to  read  their  political  speeches  instead  of  going  to  hear  the  stump 
speaker.  It  may  be,  as  Bellamy  dreamed,  that  "  frozen "  reli- 
gious music  w^ill  be  carried  into  each  home,  by  the  phonograph  or 
over  the  telephone,  instead  of  people  assembling  in  some  house  set 
apart  and  equipped  with  an  organ.  It  may  be  that  the  theater 
is  to  take  the  place  of  the  pulpit  as  an  ethical  instructor.  In 
truth  the  best  sermons  that  I  have  heard  this  winter  have  been 
acted  and  not  preached.  It  may  be  that  the  preacher  will  wake 
up  some  morning  to  find  his  occupation  gone.  When  that  day 
comes  I  shall  look  for  a  job  on  the  press  or  try  to  be  a  good  door- 
keeper in  a  worthy  theater,  if  that  proves  to  be  the  house  of  the 
Lord.  I  do  not  know  what  is  going  to  happen.  The  only  thing 
of  which  I  feel  sure  is  that  something  is  going  to  happen.  The 
religious  nature  of  man  will  find  expression  through  some  instru- 
mentality. 

The  world  is  not  going  backward.  This  is  a  better  world 
than  it  used  to  be  when  the  church  was  strongest.  It  is  going 
to  continue  to  improve.  To  that  end  I  propose  to  make  my 
contribution  through  the  church  until  I  discover  that  I  can  make 
it  better  in  some  other  way.  I  am  going  to  trj^  to  make  the  church 
over  which  I  preside  as  interesting  as  the  theater,  as  influential 
as  the  press  and  as  helpful  as  the  Associated  Charities.  I  am 
going  to  try  to  hammer  the  idea  into  the  minds  of  men  that  the 
church  of  to-day  is  the  freest  platform  that  the  world  affords,  that 
it  is  the  custodian  of  the  highest  and  most  essential  truths  and  is 


i6i 

not  afraid  to  utter  them,  that  the  church  service  can  be  inspiring 
and  instructive  and  in  every  way  helpful  and  necessary.  If  in 
the  end  the  people  vote  otherwise  by  deserting  the  church  and 
going  elsewhere,  then  I  will  go  with  them  and  try  to  find  some 
other  way  of  doing  the  work  that  I  am  trying  to  do  now. 

As  I  am  not  surprised  that  so  many  people  have  fallen  away 
from  the  church,  so  I  am  not  surprised  that  the  Christian  ministry 
is  less  attractive  to  young  men  than  it  used  to  be.  What  is  the 
ministry  for?  ^  Time  was  when  the  church  was  the  throne  from 
which  a  man  of  power  reigned  over  the  entire  life  of  the  com- 
munity. The  church  was  then  a  political  power  and  the  preacher 
preached  politics  as  a  matter  of  course  and  no  one  found  fault 
with  him  because  he  did.  They  would'  have  found  fault  with 
him  if  he  did  not.  He  was  the  guide  and  people  expected  the 
leader  to  lead.  Now  politics  and  religion  have  been  divorced. 
The  consensus  of  opinion  is  that  the  preacher  must  not  use  his 
pulpit  as  a  political  rostrum  to  advocate  his  pet  theory  of  social  re- 
form. 

Time  was  when  the  church  was  the  center  of  social  life  of  the 
community.  To-day,  except  in  provincial  localities,  this  is  not 
the  case.  The  minister,  of  course,  if  he  discovers  that  the  social 
life  of  the  community  in  which  he  is  placed  is  barren  and  unprofit- 
able, that  the  public  good  demands  a  different  and  higher  order  of 
amusement,  will  as  a  good  citizen  do  what  he  can  to  meet  the 
demand.  But  running  a  restaurant  or  a  show  or  a  fair  is  not  the 
business  of  the  ministry. 

Time  was  when  the  church  and  the  school  were  closely  identi- 
fied. They  were  almost  one  and  the  same  thing.  To-day  they 
are  separate.  There  may  be  a  call  for  the  minister  and  his  church 
to  work  along  this  line  even  to-day.  The  first  evening  school  in 
this  country  was  established  in  the  basement  of  the  old  Hollis 
Street  Church  in  Boston.  They  ran  the  school  for  several  years, 
until  they  demonstrated  to  the  citj^  that  such  a  school  was  needed, 
and  when  the  city  took  charge  of  the  matter,  and  established  free 
evening  schools,  the  church  closed  its  vestrj'  and  attended  to  some- 
thing else.  It  is  not  the  minister's  business  to  run  a  school  in 
opposition  to  the  public  school  system. 

*  See  an  admirable  article  by  Rev.  F.  W.  Perkins,  D.D.,  on  "  The 
Liberal  Church  of  To-day:  Its  Ministry." 


1 62 

Time  was  when  the  church  was  the  center  and  source  of  all 
the  charity  work  of  the  community.  More  and  more  we  are  dele- 
gating this  work  to  the  charity  organization  societies  with  their 
corps  of  efficient  workers.  The  churches  are  still  and  may  al- 
ways be  called  upon  to  supply  the  means  whereby  these  other  in- 
stitutions shall  do  their  work.  Even  the  administration  of  chari- 
ties is  not  the  business  of  the  minister  except  where  there  are  no 
charity  organizations  or  where  they  are  inefficient. 

Time  was  when  the  minister  was  also  a  healer,  a  physician,  a 
"  medicine  man."  To-day  the  world  is  supplied  with  a  splendid 
corps  of  specially  trained  men  and  women  who  have  taken  this 
field  for  their  life-work.  It  may  be  necessary  if  these  men,  by 
too  much  delving  in  things  material,  lose  sight  of  the  truth  that 
man  is  a  soul  and  lives  in  a  body,  and  that  the  soul  is  king  and 
the  body  a  servant,  that  the  church  shall  again  demonstrate  the 
power  of  thought  and  emotion,  faith  and  hope  and  love  over 
physical  functions.  But  the  healing  of  disease  is  not  primarily 
the  business  of  the  church  or  its  ministers. 

Well,  what  is  left?  One  line  of  work  after  another  has  been 
specialized  and  taken  away  from  the  church  and  its  minister.  Is 
there  anything  left  for  the  church  to  do  that  is  really  worth  doing? 
Yes.  With  all  the  changes  that  have  taken  place  it  remains  true 
to-day,  and  is  likely  to  remain  true,  that  the  church  is  the  one 
institution  in  our  modern  world  that  stands  primarily  and  all  the 
time  for  ethical  and  spiritual  ideals.  It  is  the  peculiar  function 
of  the  church  to  call  men  to  high  and  holy  living,  to  hold  con- 
stantly before  the  minds  of  men  a  noble  conception  of  what  a 
man  ought  to  be,  to  preach  the  ideal,  sing  the  ideal,  pray  the 
ideal,  and  induce  men  and  women  to  organize  around  some  ideal 
and  cooperate  earnestly  to  the  end  that  the  ideal  may  become  a 
reality.  Perhaps  the  time  may  come  when  this  function  will  also 
be  fulfilled  by  some  other  institution.  That  time  has  not  yet  ar- 
rived. Without  the  church  or  its  environment  in  the  world  of 
to-day  life  would  certainly  degenerate.  Without  the  influence 
of  the  church  politics  becomes  corrupted  by  graft;  business  is  poi- 
soned by  materialism  and  soulless  greed ;  education  becomes  merely 
a  means  for  selfish  enjoyment;  even  charity  becomes  mechanical 
and  heartless;   the  home  loses  its  sanctity  and  marriage  is  only 


i63 

another  name  for  legalized  lust.  "  Ye  are  salt,"  said  Jesus  to 
the  first  ordained  Christian  ministers.  Without  the  salt  of  the 
ministry,  a  constant  appeal  by  word  and  life  to  what  is  high  and 
hoi}',  the  constant  stimulating  of  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men  to 
still  nobler  endeavor  in  all  departments  of  life,  our  social  order 
would  become  tainted  and  stricken  with  disease. 

So  religion  will  endure.  The  gates  of  hell  will  not  prevail 
against  it  because  it  is  a  fundamental  part  of  the  deepest  instincts 
of  human  nature.  And  if  religion  endures  it  will  find  expression 
in  some  kind  of  an  institution.  And  this  institution  must  have 
officers  and  leaders.  Perhaps  it  will  be  necessary  to  change  the 
name  of  this  institution,  as  it  was  once  changed  from  "  syna- 
gogue," "  place  where  people  are  led  together,"  to  "  church," 
"  place  where  people  are  called  together."  Who  cares  for  the 
name?  Spell  it  with  six  letters  as  we  do,  or  with  nine  letters  as 
the  Hebrews  do;  call  it  a  "  Fellowship"  if  you  want  to;  name 
it  "  Brotherhood  "  if  you  will ;  designate  it  "  League  of  Service  " 
if  j^ou  prefer  that  title;  or  write  over  the  door  the  words,  "A 
Union  of  all  who  Love  in  the  Service  of  all  who  Suffer."  We 
may  find  it  expedient  to  take  the  steeples  oflF  our  churches  and 
make  them  resemble  Lloyd  Jones'  "  Center  "  in  Chicago,  substi- 
tute some  other  instrument  for  the  organ,  as  the  organ  super- 
seded the  viol  and  the  cymbals,  tear  up  the  creed,  burn  up  the 
rituals.  That  would  be  no  great  loss.  The  minister  may  come 
to  button  his  collar  in  front  instead  of  behind  and  wear  brown  or 
blue  instead  of  black;  he  may  be  called  "  helper,"  "  worker,"  "  so- 
cial settler "  instead  of  priest,  clerg\'man  or  minister.  Many 
things  may  happen  in  the  tremendous  reorganization  of  society  in 
the  midst  of  which  we  are.  But  religion  will  stand,  under  some 
name  the  church  will  stand,  and  with  some  title  and  garb  the 
ministry  will  stand.  The  men  of  the  future,  like  the  men  of  the 
past,  will  continue  to  see  visions  and  dream  dreams.  They  will 
join  hands  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  their  ideals  and  making 
their  dreams  a  reality'.  They  will  have  officers  and  leaders  and 
teachers.  And  this  institution  of  the  future,  with  its  service  and 
its  ministry,  the  child  of  the  church,  the  grandchild  of  the  syna- 
gogue, will  be  freer  and  more  helpful  and  more  powerful  than 
anything  the  past  has  produced. 


i64 


THE  PLACE  OF  JESUS  IN  THE  RELIGION  OF  THE 
MODERN  MAN 

PROF.   GEORGE   B.   FOSTER,   PH.D.,   OF  THE   UXIV'ERSITY  OF 
CHICAGO 

I.  Scientific  theology,  together  with  the  spirit  and  thought  of 
our  new  age  in  general,  has  succeeded  in  undermining  the  ecclesi- 
astical dogma  of  the  trinity  and  of  the  deity  of  Christ.  Still  the 
watchword  arose,  "  Christianity  is  Christ."  This  watchword  can 
be  understood  only  in  the  light  of  its  history.  In  Reformation 
days  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestants  deviated,  of  course,  in  many 
points,  from  those  of  the  Catholics.  Both  held  that  their  doc- 
trines were  "  Christian."  Hence  controversy  arose  as  to  which 
of  the  two  confessions  had  the  better  claim  to  this  designation. 
Appeal  was  of  necessity  made  to  history,  whereupon  it  was  evi- 
dent that  the  Catholics  had  an  undeniable  advantage.  Their  in- 
terpretation of  history  did  not  need  to  leap  over  many  centuries: 
they  could  return  step  by  step,  year  by  year,  to  the  primitive 
period  of  Christianity,  and  indicate  that  every  new  formation  and 
construction  signified  only  a  special  unfolding  and  development  of 
what  had  gone  before. 

But  Protestants  could  not  do  this.  If  they  appealed  to  history, 
they  had  to  make  a  selection  of  the  history  to  which  they  should 
appeal.  They  touched  a  sore  spot;  but  they  had  to  do  it.  They 
had  to  drive  a  stake  fixing  the  point  from  which  genuine  and  true 
Christianity  w^as  no  longer  to  be  found  in  the  stream  of  historical 
life.  Then  arose  that  great,  grievous  embarrassment  of  Protest- 
ant theology :  the  question  as  to  where  the  stake  was  to  be  driven ! 
Where  was  the  line  to  be  drawn,  according  to  which  genuine 
Christianity  was  to  be  distinguished  from  false?  According  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  ecclesiastical  doctrines  of  the  first 
three  centuries  down  to  the  Nicene  Council  were  the  unassailable 
foundation  of  genuine  Christian  faith.  A  little  later,  under  the 
influence  of  George  Calixtus,  and  in  order  to  soften  the  harsh- 
ness of  the  opposition  to  Catholicism,  the  date  was  changed  to  the 
fifth  century.  But  the  plan  did  not  work  very  well.  Soon  the 
lines  began  to  be  drawn  closer  and  closer.     Protestants  made  up 


i65 

their  minds  that  genuine  Christianity  had  not  lasted  five  cen- 
turies, nor  yet  three;  but  by  straining  a  point  they  held  on  to  the 
first  century  —  the  apostolic  age,  so-called  primitive  Christianity. 
Then,  at  last,  matters  grew  more  serious  still.  It  was  seen  that 
this  stretch  of  time  was  still  too  much.  Protestantism  split  in 
two.  One  party  declared  that  the  entire  New  Testament  medi- 
ated original  Christianity  to  them,  and  therefore  furnished  the 
criterion  of  genuine  and  true  Christianity.  They  called  this 
"biblical"  Christianity.  And  this  they  preached;  on  this  they 
would  build  their  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  pre- 
vail against  her.  The  other  party  discovered  that  the  germs  of 
all  the  things  which  a  good  Protestant  was  under  obligation  to 
consider  as  Roman  Catholic,  therefore  as  false  Christianity,  were 
contained  in  a  series  of  biblical  writings,  especially  in  the  Pauline 
epistles.  Back  they  go  again!  Genuine  Christianity  is  to  be 
found  in  all  its  purity,  not  in  the  epistles,  but  only  in  the  gospels. 
Then  John  was  suspected  of  Catholic  leanings.  The  Fourth 
Gospel  was  excluded  from  the  documents  of  "  pure  "  Christianity, 
and  retreat  was  beaten  to  the  first  three,  the  so-called  Synoptics. 
But  even  these  were  too  much,  because  these  three  gospels  con- 
tained much  which  was  afterward  developed  into  the  Catholic 
Church.  What  was  to  be  done?  Back  of  the  gospels,  to  the 
gospel  underlying  them,  was  the  cry.  The  really  "  true,"  the 
*'  original  "  Christianity,  is  to  be  sought  behind  these  gospels,  it 
was  said.  To  be  sure,  this  Christianity  no  theologian's  eye  has 
ever  seen  and  no  theologian's  ear  has  ever  heard;  nevertheless  it 
was  said  to  contain  the  pure,  unfalsified  gospel,  precisely  the  gos- 
pel which  we  to-day  still  need,  on  which  we  to-day  ought,  as  a 
duty  of  conscience,  still  to  build  our  religious  and  moral  life. 
For  this  gospel  comes  from  Jesus  —  from  Jesus,  of  whom  the 
scholars  only  really  know  that  he  was  not  what  he  was  said  to 
have  been  by  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  that  he  did  not  say  and  do 
what  the  gospels  narrate  that  he  said  and  did ;  from  Jesus,  of 
whom  we  honestly  know  very  little,  almost  nothing  with  indu- 
bitable certainty;  from  Jesus,  who,  as  a  child  of  his  people  and 
of  his  time,  thought  and  believed  and  said  much  which  we  to-day 
cannot  truthfully  think  and  believe  and  say;  from  Jesus,  who, 
however,  has  a  hidden  point  somewhere  in  his  heart    (it  is  the 


1 66 

old  problem  of  the  seat  of  the  soul  over  again)  where  true  Chris- 
tianity has  its  seat.  But  this  point  is  problematically  known 
only  to  the  scholar,  and  the  people  are  shut  up  to  a  new  Catholi- 
cism in  which  the  scholar  is  the  pope, —  a  Catholicism  less  religious 
to  the  heart,  and  more  uncertain  to  the  intellect,  than  the  papacy 
itself. 

But  is  all  this  tragedy  or  comedy?  I  shall  treat  it  as  a  process 
of  human  history  which  it  is  my  business  to  understand  and  in- 
terpret. I  shall  assume  that  an  historical  development  which  has 
been  going  on  for  four  hundred  years  is  some  expression  of  the 
divine  purpose  and  has  some  good  in  it.  Still,  we  are  in  the 
midst  of  a  crisis  greater  than  any  which  the  church  has  experienced 
before.  Men's  feet  are  slipping,  and  we  may  ask,  What  shall 
we  do? 

In  the  first  place,  since  we  know  so  little  about  Jesus,  let  us 
assume  that  we  know  nothing  with  indubitable  certainty.  For 
the  sake  of  the  argument,  let  us  assume  that  Jesus  never  lived 
at  all.  I  think  that  he  did  live.  I  agree  with  a  distinguished 
colleague  of  mine  (who  has  a  far  better  right  to  a  scientific  judg- 
ment upon  the  point  than  I  have)  that  the  denial  that  Jesus  ever 
lived  amounts  almost  to  historical  insanity.  Still,  since  we  may 
not  violently  reject  the  outcome  of  the  historical  development  as 
sketched  above,  we  may  as  well  consider  what  our  fate  would  be 
should  science  yet  go  on  to  doubt  the  historical  existence  of  Jesus. 
I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  during  the  last  decade  doubt  as  to 
the  reliability  of  our  sources  has  reached  an  extreme  at  which 
the  once  sporadic  opinion  that  Jesus  was  an  imaginary  person 
may  boast  an  ever-increasing  number  of  advocates.*  There  has 
been  a  succession  of  writers  in  Germany,  Holland,  England,  and 
America,  who  have  thus  denied  all  historicity  to  Jesus.  Recently 
even  Titius  has  written  as  follows: 

"  I  blame  no  one  if  he  is  not  able  to  share  this  judgment  con- 
cerning the  religious  uniqueness  of  Jesus,  but  sees  therein  merely 
a  survival  of  the  old  miracle  faith.  I  am  not  at  all  surprised  that 
this  enthusi/istic  [italics  mine]  judgment  is  not  every  man's  af- 
fair. On  the  contrary,  often  as  I  think  about  this  matter,  as  I 
often  indeed  do,  I  am  filled  with  astonishment  that  there  are  still 

•  See   Prctcstantischc  Monatslicfte,    lo.     Jalirgang,    Heft   7,    pp.    279    ff. 


i67 

thoughtful  and  critically  endowed  men  who  have  the  courage 
[italics  mine]  to  hold  fast  to  this  enthusiasm  .  .  .  and  that 
I  find  myself  under  the  necessity  of  showing  the  same  faith."  t 

Here  is  a  point  for  those  who  are  betrayed  into  the  attempt 
to  found  religion  on  historical  criticism.  When  appeal  is  made 
to  the  judgment  of  historical  science  and  not  to  the  judgment  of 
religious  enthusiasm,  Jesus  loses  his  place  in  the  religion  of  the 
Christian.  He  is  sacrificed  to  skepticism.  In  this  conclusion 
Titius  is  without  doubt  right.  Only  recently  such  men  as  Jo- 
hannes Miiller  and  Rade  have  made  the  same  admission.  Men 
who  have  thought  long  and  deeply  upon  this  subject  now  see  that 
it  is  at  once  unreligious  and  disastrous  to  found  our  faith  upon 
the  conclusions  of  historical  science  concerning  Jesus.  Therefore, 
I  feel  the  need  all  the  more  to  see  how  the  case  shall  stand  with 
reference  to  my  world  of  values  from  the  point  of  view  that  to 
science  the  non-existence  of  Jesus  is  a  possibility. 

Will  an  appeal  to  Christian  experience  convict  me  of  error 
when  I  say  that  the  historical-science  proof  of  the  historicity 
of  Jesus  supplies  little  certainty,  nourishment,  or  enthusiasm  to 
the  religious  life  of  Christians?  Why  is  this?  It  is  not  simply 
that  the  argument  lacks  cogency,  though  this  is  true  for  a  certain 
type  of  mind,  as  well  as  for  those  whose  habits  of  thought  lead 
them  to  exact  a  kind  of  evidence  which  historical  science  is  not 
competent  to  adduce.  The  all-important  reason  is,  first,  that 
the  side  of  the  human  consciousness  which  aggregates  historical 
data  and  enacts  the  historical  judgment  is  not  the  basic  bearer  of 
the  religious  content  at  all;  and,  secondly,  that  the  object  to  which 
the  religious  yearning  of  man  is  directed,  and  by  it  is  satisfied  as 
its  everlasting  portion,  is  not  the  historic  fact  that  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Jesus  once  lived  upon  the  earth,  but  a  system  of  val- 
ues. While  these  values  have  emerged  in  the  historical  order, 
yet  that  they  emerged  at  this  date  or  at  that,  in  this  person  or  in 
that,  is  a  consideration  —  interesting  enough  to  a  genetic  science, 
indeed  —  with  which  religion  as  such  has  nothing  whatever  to 
do.  No  fact  of  history  which  is  known  to  us  only  through  tradi- 
tion is  the  basis  of  saving  faith.  The  reason  of  this  is,  first,  that 
we  cannot  be  sure  that  such  fact,  no  matter  what  it  is,  may  not  be 

t  See  Der  Bremer  Radicalismus,  Tubingen,    1908. 


i68 

corroded  by  critical  doubt  some  time  in  the  great  future;  and, 
especiallj',  that  the  correlate  of  faith  is  value  and  not  fact.  To 
say  this  is  but  to  repeat  my  fundamental  contention  that,  whatever 
it  may  or  may  not  be,  the  historical  is  not  the  ultimate  basis  of 
religion.  Strictly  speaking,  it  is  not  the  historical  as  such,  it  is 
the  eternal  in  the  historical,  and  nothing  but  the  eternal,  that  the 
religious  nature  of  man  craves.  Furthermore,  the  pathway  into 
the  eternal  is  moral  obedience  and  not  historical  criticism,  is  do- 
ing the  will  of  God,  and  is  not  testing  the  credibility  of  tradition 
from  out  a  hoary  past.  To  determine  whether  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Jesus  lived  for  a  few  years  and  taught  for  a  few  months 
in  Palestine  many  centuries  ago,  one  must  travel  the  scientific 
path.  It  is  a  long  and  difficult  journey,  for  which  few  have  the 
time  and  fewer  still  the  ability.  The  indispensable  equipment  for 
this  journey  is  not  a  pure  heart,  but  a  knowledge  of  Latin  and  of 
Greek,  of  textual  and  historical  criticism,  of  the  nature  and  laws 
of  evidence,  and  the  like.  "  We  must  call  in  the  most  strenuous 
science  we  can  command,"  says  Neumann.  Yes,  yes;  and  once 
again,  in  our  new  time,  we  shall  witness  the  fallacy  and  anach- 
ronism of  salvation  by  knowledge,  by  learning,  common  to  or- 
thodoxy, to  the  historical-science  school  of  theology  and  to  Bud- 
dhism. Or  must  we  substitute  a  new  blind  faith  in  science  by  the 
Protestant  layman  for  the  old  blind  faith  in  the  church  on  the 
part  of  the  Catholic  layman?  "What  do  you  believe?"  asked 
Luther  of  the  charcoal  man.  "  I  believe  what  the  Church  be- 
lieves," answered  the  man.  "  And  M^hat  does  the  Church  be- 
lieve?" continued  Luther.  "I  don't  know,  sir,"  was  the  reply. 
Is  the  layman  of  to-day  to  be  like  the  charcoal  man,  only  that 
"  historical  science  "  is  substituted  for  "  the  Church  "  ?  Or  must 
one  be  a  "  successful  "  historian  in  order  to  be  a  first-hand  Chris- 
tian? This  is  the  "  gospel  of  success"  with  a  vengeance  —  none 
the  less  so  because  the  success  in  question  is  scientific.  Why  not 
say  that  one  must  achieve  artistic  success,  and  hew  a  statue  or 
paint  a  picture,  or  inventive  success,  and  contrive  a  machine,  or 
commercial  success,  and  get  rich  in  dollars,  instead  of  in  "  facts  "  ?  * 

*  To  get  rich  in  dollars  might  be  easier.  There  is  a  deadly  infraction  of  the 
ethics  of  the  intellect  in  the  easy  and  slovenly  way  in  which  some  apologists  speak 
of  many  items  of  tradition  as  fact.     A  fact  to  you  is  that  which  you  cannot  deny. 


i69 

You  might  as  well  say  that  as  to  say  that  one  must  compass 
a  certain  scientific  task  in  order  to  be  a  child  of  the  God  of  the 
Gospels.  No,  the  difficulty  which  blocks  our  way  in  accepting 
the  gospel  is  not  our  scientific  inability:  it  is  our  moral  inability, 
it  is  our  inner  moral  antipathy  to  the  message.  And  this  is  so 
because  the  world  of  religion  is  not  one  of  scientific  facts  and 
knowledge,  but  of  activities,  values  and  appreciations.  The 
Christianizing  of  a  man  consists  in  gathering  his  life  up  and 
organizing  it  into  the  Christian  system  of  activities  and  values 
and  ends,  and  not  in  delving  into  the  debatable  depths  of  the 
historicity   of  Jesus. 

While  as  historians,  therefore,  we  raise  the  question,  Did  Jesus 
ever  live?  as  apologists  we  face  a  very  different  question.  The 
apologetic  question  runs  as  follows:  What  difference  does  it  now 
make  whether  Jesus  ever  lived  or  not?  Historical  science  is  not 
apologetics,  much  as  at  times  it  arrogates  to  itself  apologetic  pre- 
rogatives, thereby  corrupting  its  own  self  and  confusing  and 
jeopardizing  the  serious  issues  which  are  at  stake.  Historical 
science  is  concerned  with  fact,  apologetics  with  truth,  the  former 
with  description  and  explanation,  the  latter  with  valuation  and 
propagandism.  The  difference  between  the  two  is  the  difference 
between  psychology,  on  the  one  hand,  and  ethics,  or  aesthetics, 
or  logic,  on  the  other.  Psychology  is  not  concerned  with  values 
as  such,  be  they  the  true  or  the  beautiful  or  the  good,  while  those 
other  sciences  are  concerned  with  nothing  but  values.  So  is  it 
with  historical  science  and  apologetics. 

Still,  in  the  point  at  issue  historical  science  has  rendered  a 
service  to  apologetics.  Since  it  has  converted  Jesus  into  problem, 
to  be  and  to  remain  problem,  apologetics  must  take  strategic  ad- 
vantage of  the  situation,  and  distinguish  more  sharply  than  ever 
before  between  the  essentials  and  the  accidents  of  our  religion. 
If,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  historical  science  cannot  cut  the 
nerve  of  religious  certitude,  then  the  historic  belief  that  Jesus 
existed  is  not  a  necessary  article  of  our  religion.  Supposing  that 
Jesus  lived,  and  was  what  the  gospels  portray,  did  he  think  that 
it  was  necessary?     Did   Paul  think  that  it  was?*     Would  the 

*  That  he  did  not  consistently  think  so  may  be  inferred  from  his  use  of 
Abraham's   faith  in   Galatians. 


lyo 

reader  let  go  his  hold  upon  the  grace  of  God,  the  worth  of  life,  the 
love  for  neighbor  and  enemy,  if  science  were  to  rob  him  of  the 
Jesus  of  history?  If  one  knows  that  the  pure  In  heart  shall 
see  God,  only  because  Jesus  said  so,  does  one  really  know  It  at 
all?  May  not  one  affirm  that  Jesus  lived,  and  yet  oneself  not  be 
well-pleasing  to  God,  and  may  not  one  deny  that  Jesus  lived,  and 
yet  be  well-pleasing  to  God?  Then  the  essential  thing  is  neither 
the  affirmation  nor  the  denial,  but  something  else.  Are  those 
scholars,  Swiss,  German,  Dutch,  English,  who,  try  hard  as  they 
may,  cannot  make  out  a  clear  case  for  the  historicity  of  Jesus, 
excluded  from  participation  in  the  values  of  the  gospel?  No; 
God  is  good,  and  salvation  Is  by  grace.  To  hold  that  belief  In 
the  existence  of  Jesus  Is  an  Inalienable  constituent  of  our  religion 
Is  to  adopt  a  position  which,  from  the  standpoints  of  Jesus  and  of 
Paul  themselves,  is  in  principle  subversive  of  religious  faith.  In- 
deed, whether  one  sees  or  not  that  his  innermost  religious  posses- 
sion would  suffer  no  vital  injury  were  historic  science  to  force 
one  to  the  position  that  Jesus  never  lived  may  very  well  be  a 
touchstone  of  the  maturity  of  one's  religious  conviction.  Of 
course  I  grant  that  essential  values  were  brought  Into  the  world 
by  Jesus,  yet,  once  here,  those  values  are  self-evidential  and  self- 
propagating,  and  may  be  possessed  by  him  who  does  not  possess 
the  certainty  of  the  existence  of  Jesus,  even  as  one  may  have  his 
thirst  quenched  by  water  without  knowing  from  what  fountain 
the  cup  is  borne. 

The  piety  which  has  long  been  a  man's  possession  may  not  be 
lost  again  because  he  no  longer  consciously  derives  it  from  Jesus, 
much  as  he  might  feel,  with  Schmiedel,  that  it  was  a  most  painful 
privation  not  to  be  able  to  look  back  and  to  look  up  to  him  as  a 
real  man.  But  water  will  quench  thirst  even  if  It  be  gathered 
from  the  common  drops  which  rain  down  from  dull  skies,  as 
well  as  if  It  bubbled  from  some  mysterious  fountain  in  the  won- 
derland of  the  world.  I  myself  believe  that  "  historical  progress 
cannot  be  explained  by  forces  originating  in  a  collective  way,  but 
by  eminent  leaders,  or  heroes  " ;  *  but  others  seek  to  derive  all 
from  the  milieu,  the  environing  circumstances;  and  I  have  to  ad- 

•  See  Finality  of  the  Cliristian  Religion,  \'ol.   I,   p.   270. 


171 

mit  that  even  the  man  who  calls  into  being  a  new  spirit  of  the  age 
—  Zeitgeist  —  is  himself,  in  a  sense,  the  child  of  his  age.  What 
I  should  like  to  urge  is  that  the  school  of  the  milieu,  which  opposes 
me,  is  not  of  necessitj^  irreligious,  since  my  own  position  requires 
me  joyfully  to  believe  that  the  milieu,  made  up  as  it  is  of  history 
and  of  nature,  in  the  largest  sense  of  these  words,  is  not  empt\''  of 
that  God  who  is  no  respecter  of  persons.  I  may  not  deny  creative 
revelation  to  milieu  any  more  than  I  may  deny  the  properties  of 
water  to  raindrops  in  my  preference  for  fountains,  for  in  all 
things  there  is  the  secret  echo  of  the  reality  of  God ;  nor  do  I 
see  that  the  milieu  school  is  compelled  to  deny  that  that  which 
constitutes  the  secret  of  personality  is  the  greatest,  the  ultimately 
decisive  thing.  And  as  to  the  case  in  hand  the  main  thing  is  the 
possession  of  this  secret  rather  than  historic  certainty  as  to  the 
biographical  facts  concerning  Jesus. 

But  it  is  not  simply  the  exigencies  of  science  and  the  nature  of 
the  case,  it  is  the  possibilities  of  the  great  future  of  the  race  itself, 
that  point  us  to  this  stronghold  of  an  impregnable  apologetics. 
A  billion  years  hence  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  race  may  be 
conceivably  as  far  above  ours  as  ours  is  above  the  status  of  the 
savages  that  roamed  the  primeval  forests.  The  civilizations  of 
Greece  and  Rome  and  Palestine  may  have  become  quite  as  prehis- 
toric as  the  long  human  story  which  lies  behind  Egj'pt  and  Baby- 
lon. The  Sea  of  Galilee  may  have  become  table-land  and  Mount 
Zion  ocean  bed.  The  familiar  stars,  even,  which  burn  in  the 
beauty  of  the  blue  above  us,  may  have  crumbled  back  into  cosmic 
dust,  and  others  may  be  shining  in  their  place.  As  to  the  heroes 
and  geniuses  who  have  made  the  epochs  of  our  past,  they  may 
have  been  swallowed  up  in  oblivion  or  be  guessed  about  from 
names  and  dates  on  weather-worn  monuments  and  manuscripts. 
And  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  Is  it  inconceivable  that  a  billion  years 
or  so  hence  the  human  beings  then  alive  will  know  as  little  about 
him  and  our  specific  form  of  religion  as  we  know  about  the  reli- 
gion of  the  dwellers  in  Atlantis,  or  any  other  submerged  land? 
Is  it  inconceivable  that  the  very  name  of  Christianit}'  shall  have 
passed  away?  And  yet  may  not  the  world  be  more  Christian 
then  than  now,  have  more  faith,  hope,  and  love,  be  more  sure  of 


172 

the  fatherljf  God,  of  a  brotherly  man,  of  an  eternal  life,  of  a  pur- 
poseful world?  May  not  the  stream  of  spiritual  influence  con- 
tinue to  deepen  and  widen,  even  though  the  springs  of  Judah  be 
forgotten?  And  as,  according  to  John,  it  was  once  necessary 
that  Jesus  should  go  away  individually  that  the  Spirit  might  come, 
is  it  inconceivable  that  it  might  be  necessary  for  him  to  pass  away 
historically,  to  that  same  end?  I  do  not  say  that  it  will  be  so: 
the  future  is  hidden  from  our  eyes.  I  only  say  that  it  may  be 
so.  I  only  wish  to  be  able  to  face  the  possibility  unafraid  —  and 
possibility  it  surely  is,  since  even  now  we  may  not  see  in  Jesus 
an  absolutely  perfect  model  without  jeopardizing  the  freedom 
and  the  progress  of  humanity.  One  should  know,  as  Schmiedel 
has  said,  that:  Jesus  was  a  man,  and  that  if  the  unknown  future 
shall  bring  us  fuller  life,  this  too  will  be  the  gift  of  the  grace  of 
God.  In  short,  whatever  be  the  fate  of  the  individual  Jesus  from 
the  science  of  the  present,  or  from  the  life  of  the  future,  no  man 
Is  justified  on  that  account  in  making  shipwreck  of  his  faith  in 
the  preciousness  and  permanence  of  our  values:  faith  in  a  Father 
in  heaven  and  in  the  filial  and  fraternal  disposition  here  upon 
the  earth. 

In  sum:  We  experience  what  Paul  experienced.  At  the  mo- 
ment when  we  draw  nearer  to  the  historical  Jesus  than  ever  be- 
fore and  stretch  out  our  hands  to  him  to  draw  him  into  our  own 
time,  we  must  give  up  the  effort  and  be  resigned  to  the  para- 
doxical word :  Even  though  we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh, 
yet  now  we  know  him  so  no  more.  Still  further  we  must  under- 
stand that  the  historical  knowledge  of  the  essence  and  life  of 
Jesus  will  not  be  a  help  but  perhaps  be  a  hindrance  to  religion. 
Not  the  Jesus  historically  known,  but  only  the  Jesus  spiritually 
risen  in  men,  can  be  a  potent  help  to  our  time.  Not  the  historical 
Jesus  but  the  spirit  which  issues  from  him  and  struggles  for  new 
results  and  new  dominion  in  human  spirits  is  that  which  over- 
cometh  the  world.  It  is  not  given  to  history  to  release  the  per- 
manent and  eternal  in  Jesus  from  the  historical  forms  in  which 
it  has  eternalized  itself  and  to  domesticate  it  as  something  dy- 
namic and  vital  in  our  world.  The  eternal  and  the  permanent 
in  Jesus  is  totally  independent  of  historical  knowledge,  and  can 
be  apprehended  only  upon  the  basis  of  the  spirit  at  present  opera- 


173 

tive  in  the  world:  so  much  spirit  of  Jesus,  so  much  true  knowl- 
edge of  Jesus.* 

2,  Let  us  now  look  wider  for  a  moment.  Broadly  speaking, 
religions  are  of  two  kinds:  those  with  their  faces  turned  toward 
the  past,  and  those  that  face  toward  the  future.t  One  says,  It 
was;  the  other.  It  shall  be.  The  religious  primitive  myth  of 
Brahmanism  lives  on  plusquam  perfectum,  the  religious  primi- 
tive myth  of  Parsism  lives  on  plusquam  futurum.  For  the  reli- 
gious pessimism  of  the  Buddhists,  the  ideal  of  perfection  is  to  be 
found  at  the  beginning  of  the  world-process.  This  original  per- 
fection was  lost,  whether  through  fall,  or  guilt  and  atonement, 
with  Anaximander,  or  through  impulse  and  impetus,  through 
resistance,  with  Fichte,  or  contradiction,  with  Hegel,  is  a  ques- 
tion of  myth  and  allegory  rather  than  of  principle.  All  religious 
pessimists  agree  that  the  pilgrimage  of  the  universe  is  downward. 
The  ideal  of  perfection  is  in  the  irrevocable  past,  along  with  the 
innocence  of  paradise.  The  world  is  a  steady  descent  from  pure 
fire  or  fine  ether  to  gross  earth,  from  reality  to  appearance,  from 
eternal  ideas  to  pale  copies,  from  Deity's  pure  thought  to  the 
transitory  process  of  nature.  The  mj'thological  parallel  to  this 
metaphj'sical  pessimism  is  the  widespread  legend  of  the  Golden 
Age,  upon  which  the  silver  and  the  brass  ensue.  The  church 
doctrine  of  the  fall  corresponds  to  this  view.  Civilization  as 
descent,  fall,  s^-mptom  of  the  dissolution  of  nature  —  this  is  noth- 
ing but  a  special  instance  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the  fall. 

As  an  offset  to  this  pessimistic  evaluation  of  the  world  and  of 
life,  of  which  Buddhism  and  neo-Platonism  are  illustrations,  we 
have  the  Iranian-Persian  religion  of  light,  which  projects  the 
ideal  of  perfection,  not  backward  into  a  distant  past,  but  forward 
into  the  remotest  future.  The  process  of  the  world  is  reversed, 
and  goes  from  the  imperfect  toward  the  perfect.  The  religious 
fantasy  is  turned  forward  and  not  backward.  It  does  not  delight 
in  picturing  what  has  been,  what  is  irrevocably  lost,  but  in  the 
promise  of  what  is  to  come  in  the  apocalyptic  glorification  of  the 
perfect  "  at  the  end  of  the  day."     The  prophetic,   the  Bacchic, 

*  So,  to,  Schweitzer  in   Vom  Reimarus  rij-  Wrede    (Tiibingen,    1906). 
t  Here     I     have     availed     myself     of     much     help     from     Dr.     Ludwig     Stein, 
Philosophische  Stromungen   dcr   Gegeniuart,    igoS. 


174 

the  Orphic,  the  Sibylh'ne  books  and  chih'astic  dreamers  proclaim 
in  hundredfold  echo  the  millennial  kingdom,  the  coming  of  joy. 
And  such  facing  the  future  is  characteristic  of  modern  thought 
and  work  everywhere. 

So,  then,  world-religion  divides  itself  into  a  pessimistic  and 
an  optimistic  method.  Both  strive  for  the  purification,  the  re- 
demption, the  moral  elevation  of  man.  Nirvana  religion  and 
prophet  religion  seek  the  same  goal :  the  moral  perfection  of  the  hu- 
man race.  Only  the  regressive  forms  of  religion,  the  romanticists 
among  the  religious  philosophers,  the  advocates  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  fall  and  of  a  lost  paradise,  follow  the  pedagogic  method  of 
making  man  more  docile,  more  manageable,  more  resigned  to  the 
destiny  of  the  world,  as  well  as  to  his  own  personal  fate,  by 
establishing  the  course  of  the  world  as  an  inclined  plane  from 
eternity  to  eternity.  The  will  of  the  individual  is  "  broken " 
that  the  will  of  the  universe  may  be  supreme  and  mandatory  and 
compulsive.  This  is  true  of  the  doctrine  of  Buddha,  the  fore- 
knowledge of  the  Greeks,  the  fate  of  the  Romans,  the  predestina- 
tion to  sin  on  the  part  of  the  mediaeval  church,  the  kismet  of  the 
Mohammedans,  the  rigid  doctrine  of  providence  of  Calvin,  of 
Spinozism  and  materialism,  and  so  on. 

Such  is  the  insight  of  the  philosophic  historian  of  religion,  and 
I  have  allowed  Stein,  in  the  book  above  mentioned,  to  interpret 
it  for  me. 

Now  which  has  the  better  stood  the  pragmatic  test  at  the  judg- 
ment-seat of  history:  the  pessimistic  or  the  optimistic  religious 
hypothesis;  Mohammedan  fatalism  or  the  Kanteian  doctrine  of 
freedom?  Which  faith  "works  better,"  faith  in  a  "lost  para- 
dise," or  faith  in  the  "kingdom  of  God  on  earth?"  Buddhism 
or  Messianism?  the  yearning  elegiac  "backwardness"  of  the 
romanticist,  with  its  paralyzing  "  It  was,"  or  the  brave,  upright 
hosanna  of  the  religion  of  progress,  with  its  Messianic  psalmodic 
"  It  shall  be  "  and  its  counsel,  "  Serve  the  Lord  in  joy?  " 

You  see  why  I  have  laid  the  foundation  broad  and  deep.  It 
is  to  urge  that  we  line  up  on  the  side  of  a  religion  of  the  future 
rather  than  of  the  past,  that  we  turn  our  faces  to  the  rising 
rather  than   to  the  setting  sun. 

To  be  sure,  a  bad  as  well  as  a  good  use  may  be  made  of  this. 


You  know  that  every  church  has  maintained  that  the  future  was 
with  it,  and  therefore  has  claimed  the  right  to  rule  the  future. 
To  the  Protestant  it  has  been  self-evident  that  the  world  was 
sure  to  become  Protestant,  and  to  the  Catholic  it  has  been 
equally  self-evident  that  the  whole  world  would  bow  the  knee 
to  its  sole  saving  faith.  The  modern  man  takes  no  interest  in 
this  controversy.  It  smacks  of  ecclesiastical  selfishness  and  vain- 
glory. However,  ours  is  not  this  old  controversy,  but  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  future  of  religion  and  the  religion  of  the  future. 
As  to  the  former,  in  my  opinion,  all  the  age-long  contempt  for 
religion  is  at  bottom  contempt  not  for  religion  at  all,  but  for 
the  wrappings  of  religion  which  can  be  made  to  appear  in  such 
a  ridiculous  light.  Religion  must  be  evaluated  as  a  creative  ac- 
tivity of  the  human  spirit  —  which  reveals  the  eternity  in  a 
human  heart  and  which  shall  be  a  pillar  of  fire  for  the  pilgrimage 
of  our  race  as  long  as  man  is  man  and  nothing  human  is  foreign 
to  him.  But  of  course  this  is  personal;  faith,  not  sight,  convic- 
tion, not  experience.  There  is  always  the  possibility  that  some- 
thing unforeseen,  something  incalculable,  may  happen.  This  pos- 
sibility can  vanish  only  by  a  clear  insight  into  the  religion  of  the 
future. 

But  is  not  the  future  hidden  in  impenetrable  gloom?  Would 
it  not  be  more  important  and  more  rational  to  live  in  the  present? 
So  we  have  ever  been  told.  But  a  life  so  lived  is  weak  and  im- 
potent. Such  a  life  in  the  present  alone  is  consumed  by  the 
past.  The  beauty  of  the  past  is  celebrated,  the  truth  of  the 
past  is  preached,  and  the  good  of  the  past  is  worshiped  and  imi- 
tated. Do  you  know  how  redemption  from  this  cult  of  death 
came,  how  a  new  day  dawned  that  believed  in  its  own  self?  It 
was  by  making  the  future  the  program,  the  goal,  the  power  of  the 
present :  the  power  of  the  age  to  come,  says  the  old  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  It  was  not  by  walking  back  through  the  world  to 
pluck  flowers  which  had  grown  out  of  graves.  It  was  by  the 
birth  of  the  purpose  that  the  church  should  be  not  so  much  a 
hospital  as  a  true  "  labor  union,"  that  faith  should  be  used  not 
so  much  as  crutch  and  medicine  for  our  weakness  as  a  power  to 
lift  us  above  our  weakness  —  not  simply  reconciling  us  to  our 
pain,  but  transforming  pain  into  higher  life  and  health. 


176 

Is  not  God  the  living  God  ?  Are  we  to  think  that  God 
granted  his  power  only  to  a  few  select  souls  and  only  once,  for  a 
few  decades  or  a  century  at  most?  If  the  Synoptists'  Jesus  were 
living  to-day,  would  he  not  still  speak  of  the  Father  as  still  send- 
ing the  rain  and  clothing  the  lilies  and  caring  for  the  sparrows 
and  numbering  the  hairs  of  our  heads?  If  John's  Jesus  were 
living  to-day,  would  he  not  once  again  cry,  My  Father  worketh 
even  until  now?  Would  not  sin  be  forgiven  with  a  fresh  for- 
giveness, and  peace  be  whispered  with  a  living  voice?  Is  not 
every  living  being  a  sign  of  the  eternal  creative  power  and  om- 
nipotent fullness  of  God?  Then  do  not  all  participate  in  the 
omnipotent  and  creative  divine  energy?  Then  let  us  turn  again 
from  the  demonstration  of  the  letter  and  of  the  history  to  the 
demonstration  of  the  spirit  and  of  power.  Every  man  who 
awakens  to  new  life  and  strength  desires  to  create  something 
new,  something  unheard  of,  something  that  has  never  been  before, 
something  which  shall  witness  to  the  eternal  and  unwithering  life 
of  the  human  soul.  We  have  to-day  still  the  blind  that  would 
see,  the  deaf  that  would  hear,  the  lame  that  would  walk,  the  leper 
that  would  be  made  whole.  And  if  we  are  not  able  to  give  them 
that  for  which  they  yearn,  that  is,  a  light  of  their  own,  a  life  of 
their  own,  a  power  of  their  own,  then  is  our  faith  a  vain  and 
dead  thing  which  can  never  make  the  dead  alive.  Take  some 
poor  man  who  is  blind  and  knows  it  not,  and  open  his  eyes  that 
he  may  see  in  the  deep  of  his  own  soul  those  invincible  forces  of 
life  that  would  press  up  into  the  light  —  that  would  be  a  true 
miracle!  Snap  the  fetters  which  bind  you  to  dead  customs  and 
slaveries,  have  the  courage  of  your  own  convictions,  and  you 
have  set  a  captive  free!  Hearken  not  to  public  opinion  so  much 
as  to  the  quiet,  unexpressed  voice  of  your  own  heart  and  con- 
science —  remembering  that  truth  is  more  powerful  than  public 
opinion  —  and  you  have  made  the  deaf  to  hear,  an  outcast  clean, 
the  dead  alive!  This  is  the  religion  of  power.  Streams  of  living 
water  flow  from  our  souls.  Liberation  and  illumination  stream 
from  our  words  and  works.  Enthusiasm  which  purifies  us  from 
hopelessness  and  ennui  flames  forth  from  the  spirit.  A  holy  fire 
melts  the  ice  of  the  heart.  These  would  be  the  signs  and  miracles 
of  a  new  age.     They  would  witness  to  the  worth  and  the  future 


177 

of  man.  Faith  again  would  grow  certain  of  itself,  would  see 
a  supernatural  in  everything  natural,  a  superhuman  in  all  that 
is  human.  There  would  be,  along  with  the  living  God,  a  living 
man,  a  life  of  the  spirit,  a  springtime  life  of  a  coming  humanity. 

Then  there  would  be  no  regrettable  question  as  to  which  is  the 
better  faith,  the  "  old  "  or  the  "  new."  There  would  be  no  old 
faith  and  there  would  be  no  new  faith.  There  would  be  only 
weak  faith  and  strong  faith.  There  w'ould  be  only  the  faith 
which  speaks  about  past  miracles  and  bases  itself  on  past  miracles 
and  apologizes  for  past  miracles  about  which  it  has  heard,  and 
the  faith  which  does  miracles  now  every  day,  every  hour,  enjoying 
perennial  self-rejuvenation  in  heart  and  life.  Wherever  there 
has  been  a  faith  born  of  God  it  has  been  a  power  and  not  a 
w^eakness,  courage  and  not  cowardice.  Therefore  every  kind  of 
\\eakness  and  cowardice  is  unfaith,  no  matter  how  ecclesiastical 
and  pious  it  may  be.  Wherever  men  substitute  custom  for  truth, 
wherever  the  antiquity  of  an  ecclesiastical  past,  the  geographical 
extent  of  a  faith  and  the  number  of  its  adherents,  pass  as  proof 
for  the  inner  right  and  the  inner  vitality  of  a  faith,  there  is  also 
the  abandonment  of  the  demonstration  of  the  spirit  and  of  power. 
Every  faith  whose  persistence  depends  upon  its  profession,  "  Once 
I  was,"  is  corroded  with  anxiety  and  weakness  that  makes  it  im- 
potent to  regenerate  the  human  heart  and  to  liberate  the  human 
spirit.  The  faith  of  power  has  the  other  watchword,  "  I  shall 
be!  "     And  its  power  is  that  it  feels  the  future  alive  in  it. 

This  prophet  religion  of  the  future,  and  not  the  Nirvana  re- 
ligion of  the  past,  was  Jesus'  religion.  He  faced  forward. 
Would  he  not  do  so  now?  Men  ask  what  Jesus  thought,  what 
he  did.  They  mean  that  to  think  as  he  thought  and  to  do  as  he 
did  would  be  enough  for  them.  They  may  do  and  think  as 
Jesus  did,  but  if  Jesus  were  here  to-day  in  our  modern  world, 
would  he  do  and  think  as  he  didf  In  many  ways  not.  He  would 
cease  to  think  some  things  and  begin  to  think  others ;  cease  to  do 
some  things,  and  do  others.  The  crystalline  clearness  of  his 
mind  and  flawless  truthfulness  of  his  conscience  would  freely 
impel  him  to  this.  Were  he  alive  to-day  he  would  not  copy  the 
Jesus  of  that  time  and  place.  To  copy  even  him  is  to  kill  the 
soul.     He  who  said  then,  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead,  go  thou 


178 

and  seek  the  kingdom  of  God ;  I  am  come  to  set  a  man  at  variance 
with  his  father;  put  not  new  wine  into  old  bottles  nor  new  patch 
on  old  garment ;  I  am  come  to  kindle  a  fire  upon  the  earth,  and 
how  am  it  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished  —  he  who  said 
these  things  and  such  things  as  these  (and  if  he  did  not  say  these 
things  we  do  not  know  what  he  did  say),  and  who  condemned 
bitterly  the  custodians  of  the  past  who  were  not  creators  of  a 
future,  w^ere  he  to  walk  up  and  down  our  earth  to-day,  would 
turn  away  from  dead  dogma,  injurious  survivals,  meaningless  cus- 
toms, moribund  churches,  and  make  a  new  future,  re-create  life, 
release  the  spirit,  and  trust  a  God  who  lives  and  loves  to-day. 
This,  not  to  repeat  a  dead  past,  is  what  he  would  have  us  to  do. 
The  new  world,  inner  and  outer,  could  not  be  ours  as  a  gift,  even 
from  him.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  we  must  make  it  ourselves. 
And  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  deny  that  we  could  do  this,  should 
science  conclude  that  he  never  lived  at  all.  Indeed  it  is  not  im- 
possible that,  if  science  came  to  this  conclusion,  a  sense  of  release 
and  freedom  would  come  to  many  a  soul  whose  true  spontaneity 
and  free  development  are  abridged  by  the  dogma  of  the  authority 
of  Jesus. 

But  if  he  lived,  as  I  hold  that  he  did,  what  is  his  function  in 
the  religion  of  a  modern  man?  Not  to  fasten  us  to  himself  as 
a  "  letter  "  that  would  enslave  and  kill,  whereas  he  stood  for  free- 
dom and  life.  Not  to  have  the  efifect  of  classicism  in  art,  which 
sometimes  buoys  up  a  whole  subsequent  age,  so  that  there  is  only 
imitation  and  not  creation,  monotony  and  not  diversity,  servility 
and  not  freedom.  Not  to  donate  ideals  from  afar.  That  is  ex- 
cluded by  the  nature  of  ideals  and  the  mode  by  which  we  ac- 
quire them.  And  not  to  convert  our  religion  into  a  religion  of 
the  past  instead  of  a  religion  of  the  future.  He  said  nothing 
of  a  lost  paradise  or  of  a  fallen  Adam  or  of  a  golden  age  in  the 
past,  nothing  of  the  glory  of  a  sun  that  was  set.  He  never  said, 
"It  was!"  He  only  said:  "It  shall  be!"  But  the  shall  ke 
could  be  made  to  be  only  by  putting  the  hand  to  the  plow  and 
not  looking  back.  What  then  is  the  place  of  Jesus  in  the  reli- 
gion of  a  modern  man  ?  Any  one  of  you  can  answer  now.  Once 
again  I  shall  let  Bousset  answer  for  all  of  us: 

"  But  what  now  )<i  the  historical   Jesus  for  us?     Is  it  not  for 


179 

us  indifferent,  whether  or  not,  behind  this  whole  stream  of  life, 
behind  the  mighty  phenomenon  of  Christianity,  there  stand  a 
unified,  personally  living  force?  Faith  ever  points  and  presses 
forward  into  the  future;  it  will  create,  mold,  recruit;  it  is  a 
forceful,  strenuous  [geschaftig^,  powerful,  active  thing.  Is  not 
this  continuous  looking  backward,  living  in  memory,  binding  one's 
self  to  a  remote,  strange  past,  obstructive  and  dangerous  for  one's 
own  life   [Weseni  ? 

"  We  shall  try  now,  only  very  briefly,  to  meet  this  objection.  A 
parallel  from  domain  other  than  that  of  religion  may  be  of  assist- 
ance here.  We  might  also  ask:  Do  not  the  great  creations  of 
past  art  have  a  crippling  and  inhibiting  effect  upon  the  joy  in 
creative  work  and  the  independence  of  the  present  generation? 
They  have  actually  had  such  an  effect  on  many  periods  of  artistic 
life :  I  mean  all  periods  of  one-sided  classicism.  And  yet  it  would 
be  the  height  of  folly  for  us  to  seek  to  free  ourselves  as  far  as 
possible  from  the  great  works  and  masters  of  the  art  of  the  past. 

"  The  case  is  exactly  the  same  for  the  religious  life.  Neither 
art  nor  religion  lives  as  do,  for  example,  science  and  technology, 
from  thoughts  constituting  an  independent  and  closed  system. 
Both  art  and  religion  are  in  a  very  different  way  dependent  upon 
the  past ;  they  live  upon  the  life  of  the  great  personalities  of  the 
past  and  their  creations.  Art  in  its  original  force  is  just  in  the 
works  and  persons  of  the  great  masters,  at  which  ever  anew  new 
life  is  enkindled.  So  also  religion  is  primarily  present  in  the 
great  dominating  personalities  of  religious  history,  in  the  law- 
givers, prophets,  founders  of  religions,  and  reformers.  The  his- 
tory of  religion  has  here  spoken  too  clearly.  The  religions  which 
stand  at  the  summit  of  development  are  those  behind  which  —  at 
their  beginnings  or  in  the  course  of  them  —  stand  great,  effective 
personalities.  And  if  we  wished  to  explain  (as  is,  however,  im- 
possible) all  those  personalities  as  myths  and  imaginary  figures, 
still  this  instinct  of  personification,  which  shows  itself  ever  anew 
at  the  highest  points  of  religion,  would  remain  inexplicable,  and 
bear  witness  to  the  power  of  personality  in  the  religious  life. 
And  this  attachment  of  all  religious  life  to  great  personalities  ap- 
pears more  and  more  clearly  in  the  course  of  history.  The  pro- 
ductive,  independent,  life-generating  force  of  religion  has  fallen 


i8o 

off.  Since  the  appearance  of  Christianity,  only  one  religion  has 
arisen  —  Islam.  And  all  the  j^reat  personalities  who  have  really 
furthered  the  course  of  Christianity  have  been  convinced  that 
they  derived  their  life  from  the  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  v^'hom, 
to  be  sure,  in  many  cases,  they  only  saw  covered  with  thick  and 
often  very  strange  veils.  Religion  lives  only  in  and  from  great 
personalities.  We  must  ever  anew  kindle  our  little  fire  at  their 
great  fire.  But  the  center  and  the  highest  point  of  all  these  lead- 
ers bearing  the  life  of  religion  is  the  person  of  Jesus. 

"  But  if  this  is  the  case,  those  personalities,  and  this  one  sur- 
passing them  all,  are  not  dead  historical  past,  which  would  be 
a  fetter  on  the  life  of  the  present.  They  live  and  are  present; 
the  life  of  the  present  is  kindled  by  them.  It  is  our  fault  if  there 
remains  mere  authority  —  faith  and  a  dependence  on  the  past. 
From  the  figure  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  sweeps  on  a  stream  of 
fresh  life ;  but  we  throw  ourselves  into  this  stream  and  let  it  bear 
us." 

Now  that  I  have  made  this  long  quotation,  I  am  not  entirely 
satisfied  with  it.  I  once  was,  and  urged  the  same  point  as  power- 
fully as  I  could  in  my  former  book.  It  is  not  that  I  mean  to 
recede  from  emphasis  upon  the  epoch-making  importance  of  out- 
standing personalities.  It  is,  however,  that  I  have  come  to  won- 
der whether,  for  one  thing,  the  emphasis  be  not  a  bit  overdone, 
and,  for  another,  whether  the  significance  of  the  Great  Man  in 
the  past  shall  be  kept  up  in  the  future.  You  may  think  a  moment 
of  the  genesis  of  our  religion,  to  illustrate  the  first  of  my  two 
scruples.  Did  Jesus  entirely  originate  that  primitive  messianic 
cult  with  which  our  religion  is  continuous?  On  the  contrary, 
the  contribution  which  the  historical  Jesus  made  thereto  is  most 
difficult  to  determine.  It  is  probable  that  his  self-consciousness 
powerfully  influenced  the  development  of  the  new  community, 
that  it  was  through  his  own  messianic  certainty  that  his  person  be- 
came the  center  of  the  "  gospel  " — his  person,  now  of  more  value 
to  the  circle  of  the  faithful  than  his  cause.  It  was  not  the  ethics 
—  religious  message  which  Jesus  proclaimed,  it  was  salvation 
through  the  Messiah,  that  was  the  central  thing  in  this  original 
faith  of  primitive  Christianity.     It  w^as  not  a  Jesus-cult;  it  was 


i8i 

a  messiah  cult.  Sharply  enough  has  Professor  Otto  Pfleiderer 
combated  present-day  historical  error  on  this  subject: 

"  We  will  guard  carefully  against  committing  the  error  so  wide- 
spread to-day  of  reading  into  the  biblical  documents  something 
they  do  not  contain,  and  of  putting  aside  everything  which  they 
do  contain  that  is  not  entirely  agreeable  to  our  modern  manner 
of  thinking.  It  is  in  such  fashion  that  the  well-known  Jesus  ro- 
mances originate,  shooting  up  like  mushrooms  from  the  ground ; 
we  may  well  grant  those  poets  the  privilege  of  doing  such  work, 
but  they  ought  not  to  lay  claim  to  the  credit  of  telling  actual 
history.  Just  that  which  to  the  modern  consciousness  is  odd, 
which  in  fact  seems  to  offend  it,  just  that  usually  reveals  that 
which  is  historically  most  characteristic  —  the  thing  upon  which 
the  thoroughgoing  success  of  the  Christian  faith  rested."  * 

In  other  words,  it  was  precisely  those  "  supernatural "  and 
catastrophic  parts  of  the  movement  which  history  itself  has  shown 
to  be  an  error  of  the  period ;  it  was  miracle  and  mystery  and  sac- 
rament and  charisms,  which  are  now  interesting  problems  of 
psychology  and  not  content  of  religious  metaphysics  —  it  was  pre- 
cisely these  things  that  were  most  effective  in  that  primitive  situ- 
ation. And  yet  not  these  alone.  A  number  of  observations 
should  be  made  here.  Not  a  single  factor,  but  only  a  plurality  of 
factors,  is  cause  of  an  event. 

No  one  person  makes  a  religion,  any  more  than  one  person 
makes  a  language. 

"  What  can  be  more  complicated,  more  logical,  more  mar- 
velous than  a  language?  Yet  whence  can  this  admirably  organ- 
ized production  have  arisen,  except  it  be  the  outcome  of  the  un- 
conscious genius  of  crowds?  The  most  learned  scholars,  the  most 
esteemed  grammarians,  can  do  no  more  than  note  down  the  laws 
that  govern  language.  They  would  be  utterly  incapable  of  cre- 
ating them.  Even  with  respect  to  the  ideas  of  great  men,  are  we 
certain  that  they  are  exclusively  the  offspring  of  their  brains? 
No  doubt  such  ideas  are  always  created  by  solitary  minds,  but  is 
it  not  the  genius  of  crowds  that  has  furnished  the  thousands  of 
grains  of  dust  forming  the  soil  in  which  they  have  sprung  up?  "  f 

•  Religion   and   Historic   Faith,   pp.    252   flF. 
t  Gustave  Le  Bon,  The  CroTvd,  p.  9. 


1 82 

Similarly,  Jesus  by  himself  alone  could  never  have  led  to  the 
organization  of  a  new  cult.  To  begin  with,  such  a  community 
could  not  have  arisen  had  the  Roman  officials  ruling  in  Judea 
made  it  a  matter  of  policy  not  to  interfere  with  the  inner  religious 
affairs  of  the  people,  unless  political  necessity  required  them  to 
do  so.  Then,  again,  Judaism  at  that  time  was  acquainted  with 
very  various  sectarian  formations:  Sadducees,  Pharisees,  Essenes. 
There  were  also  separate  rabbinical  schools.  These  new  messian- 
ists,  by  no  means  disengaged  from  the  common  Israelitish  stock, 
could  easily  pass  as  another  school,  or  order,  or  sect,  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Roman  authorities.  But  for  another  thing  especially,  the 
new  cult  could  never  have  arisen  had  it  not  been  for  the  inveterate 
messianic  hope  and  the  traditional  messianic  dogmatics  which  so 
apprehended  and  assimilated  Jesus,  which  so  messianized  him, 
that  his  own  central  message  is  obscured  here.  Would  not  Jesus 
have  said  to  these  messianic  worshipers,  It  is  written.  Thou  shalt 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve?  Most 
of  all  must  we  think  of  the  immemorial  historical  creations  of 
whole  peoples,  stones  carved  from  so  many  quarries  at  cost  of 
so  much  sweat  and  blood,  for  the  building  of  this  new  temple! 
God,  Spirit,  Messiah,  resurrection,  judgment-day,  kingdom  of 
heaven  —  consider  the  age-long  historic  experience  which  developed 
these  concepts  in  the  function  of  a  higher  life.  Was  not  a 
greater  contribution  made  to  their  formation  and  skill  of  func- 
tioning by  the  long  racial  experimentation  and  achievement  than 
was  made  by  Jesus  himself,  even?  Besides,  we  have  just  begun 
to  trace  the  relations  of  our  ecclesiastical  beginnings,  inchoate, 
even  then,  to  the  hidden,  far-off  primitive  sagas  of  other  folk-tra- 
vail, and  also  to  Israelitish  popular  lore.  Multitudinous  toil 
from  numberless  individuals  and  nations  earned  the  heritage  of 
messianism  into  which  the  primitive  community  now  entered  — 
other  men  and  peoples  labored,  and  it  entered  into  their  labors. 
And  if  Jesus,  with  joy  and  gratitude,  would  have  his  disciples  rec- 
ognize this  principle  as  they  reaped  the  Samaritan  harvest,  he 
would  have  been  the  first  to  pay  tribute  to  the  sowers  and  reap- 
ers from  out  the  gray  historic  life  of  that  messianic  harvest  which 
his  disciples  were  now  to  garner.  To  be  sure,  his  own  contribu- 
tion was  epoch-making,  but,  as  I  have  said,  there  is  a  real  sense  in 


i83 

which  epoch-makers  are  themselves  made.  It  is  difficult  to  state 
this  matter  briefly  without  seeming  to  contradict  the  underivable 
originality  of  Jesus,  but  the  contradiction  is  only  apparent,  and 
I  hold  to  both,  as  I  do  to  both  individualism  and  collectivism  in 
social  philosophy. 

But  my  second  critical  remark  upon  Bousset's  position  —  which, 
nevertheless,  is,  as  I  say,  for  substance  still  my  own  —  is  as  to 
whether  the  Great  Man  shall  be  as  controlling  in  the  future  as 
in  the  past.  Aristocracies  of  the  old  kind  are  passing  away:  feudal 
aristocracies,  aristocracies  of  birth,  capitalistic  aristocracies.  A 
new  aristocracy  is  arising,  the  aristocracy  of  democracy,  knights 
of  labor.  The  emphasis  is  to  be  upon  the  people.  The  Creator 
seems  to  have  thought  that  one  Niagara  was  enough  for  a  continent, 
but  he  has  made  thousands  of  little  streams  to  flow  by  our  homes 
and  through  our  fields,  and  the  glory  and  the  greatness  of  our 
country  is  due  not  so  much  to  Niagara  as  to  these  little  streams 
which  gladden  and  refresh  the  earth.  Not  denying  the  kindling 
power  of  the  Great  Man  of  the  past,  are  we  not  showing  wisdom 
in  finding  inspiration  and  rebuke  in  the  cheerful  godliness,  the 
fidelity  to  duty,  the  heroic  and  uncomplaining  self-sacrifice,  the 
unselfish  love  and  service  manifested  by  plain  men  and  women  in 
the  common  lot  all  around  us  to-day  —  by  the  washerwoman 
supporting  her  family  of  little  children,  the  unfortunate  mer- 
chant who  sacrifices  everj'  comfort  and  pleasure  that  he  may  qui- 
etly pay  his  honest  debts,  the  young  man  who  gives  up  college 
that  he  may  earn  the  money  for  his  sister's  education,  the  old 
people  toiling  in  the  dark  at  the  mountain's  foot  to  keep  the  boy 
at  school  so  that,  as  they  say,  he  may  have  a  better  chance  in  life 
than  they  have  had.  Ah,  my  friends,  human  nature's  soil  did 
not  exhaust  itself  in  growing  one  bright  consummate  flower;  the 
earth  is  bursting  with  new  bloom  every  day.  "  But  the  beautiful 
life  which  is  lived  by  the  *  common  herd  *  to-day,  has  not  that  life 
come  from  the  life  of  Jesus?  "  you  ask.  That  is  just  the  point. 
Has  it?  What  is  the  fact?  Is  human  goodness  aristocratic,  nay 
monarchic,  or  is  it  democratic?  All  prejudices  and  fears  aside, 
it  is  evident  that  human  nature's  creative  power  in  the  world 
of  goodness  is  not  limited  to  the  Great  Man  and  the  Great  Man's 
influence,  but,   though  graded,   is  immanent  and  constant  in   the 


1 84 

race;  it  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  democratic  goodness  about 
us  is  not  so  much  a  donation  from  Jesus  as  a  creation  of  modern 
men  who  are  as  certainlj''  children  of  God  as  Jesus  was  himself  — 
if  so  be,  as  Paul  said,  God  is  One.  The  contrary  position  is  a 
survival  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  original  sin,  of  the  non 
posse  non  peccari,  of  the  total  moral  inability  of  man  on  account 
of  the  fall,  a  position  which,  though  not  meant  to  be  such,  is 
really  blasphemy  against  God  and  man.  Think  of  our  human 
patriotism,  often  with  its  self-immolating  heroism ;  of  our  love 
of  family  and  home,  often  with  its  chaste  grace  and  beauty;  of 
our  social  life,  not  without  its  neighborliness;  of  our  business 
world,  with  its  energy  and  survey  and  foresight,  not  without  its 
fine  philanthropies;  of  our  land  dotted  with  schools,  where  ideals 
sprout  and  bloom :  think  of  these  things,  and  you  cannot  escape 
the  conviction  that  they  are  traceable  to  the  elemental  and  in- 
alienable impulses  and  processes  of  human  nature  itself  even  more 
than  to  the  Man  of  Galilee,  who  indeed  does  not  seem  to  have 
made  much  of  any  of  them.  And  even  if  you  think  of  the  achieve- 
ment of  an  autonomous  good  will  for  which  Jesus  seems  to  have 
centrally  stood,  we  know  that  it  belongs  to  the  idea  and  plan 
of  the  human  itself  to  press  forward  to  the  mark  of  the  prize 
of  this  high  calling.  This  was  the  great  message  of  Kant,  but 
can  we  honestly  contend  that  Kant  either  derived  the  message 
from  Jesus  or  depended  chiefly  upon  Jesus  for  its  fulfillment? 

But  I  must  not  pursue  the  subject  farther  at  this  time.  I  trust 
I  have  hurt  no  one's  feelings.  In  my  opinion,  what  I  have  said 
would  meet  with  the  approval  of  that  Jesus  who  thought  of  him- 
self as  like  the  good  shepherd  that  laid  down  his  life  for  the 
sheep,  like  the  father  of  the  prodigal,  whose  loving  and  wounded 
heart  forgave  all,  like  the  poor  widow,  who  gave  her  all,  all  her 
living;  like  the  good  Samaritan,  rather  than  like  the  aristocratic 
priest  and  Levite.  And  it  was  because  he  was  like  this  homely 
democratic  goodness,  which  he  did  not  make,  but  found  already 
there,  that  he  was  greater  than  the  monarchic  David  or  Solomon. 


i»3 


Fourth  Topic  of  the  Congress, 

"  RELIGION  AND  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION." 

THE   SOCIAL  CONSCIENCE  AND  THE  RELIGIOUS 

LIFE 

PROF.   FRANCIS  G.  PEABODY,  D.D.,  OF  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY, 
CAMBRIDGE,    MASS. 

The  most  remarkable  discovery  of  the  present  generation  — 
more  characteristic  of  the  present  age  than  the  telephone  or  the 
automobile  or  aerial  navigation  —  is  the  discovery  of  the  Social 
Conscience;  the  unprecedented  activity  of  social  responsibility 
and  social  service,  the  new  definition  of  duty  in  terms  of  social 
obligation  and  social  redemption.  Never  in  human  history  were 
so  many  people,  learned  and  ignorant,  employers  and  employed, 
rich  and  poor,  wise  and  otherwise,  so  seriously  concerned  with 
the  question  of  social  justice,  the  answering  of  social  problems 
and  the  realizing  of  social  dreams.  A  European  philosopher  has 
lately  said  that  as  the  fifteenth  century  is  remembered  for  its 
renaissance  of  art,  and  the  sixteenth  century  for  the  revival  of 
religion,  and  the  seventeenth  century  as  an  epoch  in  philosophy, 
and  the  eighteenth  century  as  the  era  of  democracy,  and  the  nine- 
teenth century  as  the  period  of  applied  science,  so  the  twentieth 
century  will  be  recalled  by  succeeding  generations  as  the  Age 
of  the  Social  Question.  The  studies  which  interpret  society  cre- 
ate a  new  education;  the  legislation  which  adjusts  society  gives 
a  new  function  to  government;  the  practical  devotion  of  multi- 
tudes to  social  amelioration  opens  the  way  to  a  new  expansion 
of  morality. 

Nowhere  is  this  call  of  the  social  conscience  more  clearly 
heard  than  in  the  organizations  dedicated  to  religion.  No  church 
can  justify  its  existence  in  the  Age  of  the  Social  Question  with- 
out adding  to  its  equipment  for  worship  a  further  equipment  for 
work.     Behind  the  house  of  prayer  rises  the  parish  house,  with 


i86 

its  clubs  and  classes,  its  deaconesses  and  visitors,  its  gymnasiums 
and  kindergartens,  its  social  settlement  and  personal  relief. 
What  then,  one  asks  himself,  is  to  be  the  effect  on  the  reli- 
gious life  of  this  age  of  social  conscience?  Is  a  social  program 
to  be  substituted  for  a  religious  faith?  Is  the  church  as  the 
shrine  to  be  supplanted  by  the  church  as  a  workshop?  Is 
communion  with  God  to  be  crowded  out  by  service  to  man,  so- 
ciology' to  be  more  important  than  theology  and  a  change  in  the 
economic  order  more  desired  than  a  change  in  the  human  heart? 

To  these  questions  it  must  be  first  of  all  replied  that  a  genuine 
sense  of  difficulty  has  begun  to  manifest  itself  at  this  point  both 
among  those  who  represent  the  religious  life  and  among  those 
who  represent  the  social  conscience.  On  the  one  hand  there  are 
many  devout  persons  who  view  with  scepticism,  if  not  with 
alarm,  this  movement  of  social  service.  They  have  been  taught 
to  regard  religion  as  a  personal  redemption  from  sin  or  a  spirit- 
ual allegiance  to  Christ,  and  to  identify  religion  with  boys'  clubs 
and  recreation  classes  seem  to  them  to  confuse  two  distinct 
spheres  of  life.  The  London  Spectator  lately  suggested  that  the 
Christian  religion  might  be  defined  as  "  philanthropy  touched  and 
warmed  by  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ;"  but  to  many  Christian 
disciples  this  would  seem  not  only  a  blankly  unhistorical  but  a 
grotesquely  inadequate  definition,  and  they  would  be  apprehensive 
lest  under  such  a  definition  the  warmth  of  the  philanthropy  might 
supplant  the  reverence  for  Jesus  Christ.  A  Christian  minister, 
standing  in  a  Woman's  Settlement  House,  said :  "  This  is  very 
beautiful,  but  I  wish  there  were  more  of  Christ  in  it."  The 
very  beauty  of  this  perfect  flower  of  philanthropy  excited  in  him 
a  pang  of  regret  because  the  flower  had  no  tag  bearing  his  Mas- 
ter's name. 

On  the  other  hand,  this  apprehension  of  religious  people  is 
met  by  many  representatives  of  the  social  conscience  with  undis- 
guised indifference,  if  not  with  contempt.  A  great  proportion 
of  modern  social  service  has  become,  consciously  or  unconsciously, 
quite  dissociated  from  the  religious  life  and  regards  the  teachings 
of  religion  as  either  superfluous  or  unreal.  "  Society,"  an  Eng- 
lish scholar  has  said,  "  has  absorbed  into  its  tissue  a  large  measure 
of  that  moral  idealism  for  which  the  church  once  seemed  the  soli- 


i87 

tary  representative.  The  church  has  stood  aloof  from  the  world 
and  now  the  world  takes  daily  revenge  by  standing  aloof  from 
the  church.  Organized  charity  has  found  the  differences  of  Chris- 
tian creeds  so  obstructive  of  a  common  task  that  it  has  in  large 
degree  practically  secularized  itself  and  even  prohibits  its  agents 
from  religious  service.  The  same  indifference  marks  the  conduct 
of  labor  organizations  in  all  countries.  At  the  same  hour  when 
religious  people  are  meeting  for  worship  these  unions  of  wage- 
earners  meet  to  deliberate  on  industrial  problems,  and  they  do  not 
hesitate  to  claim  that  these  topics  are  quite  as  instructive  and  ele- 
vating as  many  sermons.  Religion  appears  to  them  to  be  occu- 
pied with  matters  too  remote  from  daily  life  to  have  any  genuine 
interest,  and  the  contemplation  of  eternity  is  regarded  as  a  luxury 
reserved  for  capitalists.  "  My  associates,"  the  President  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  has  stated,  "  have  come  to  look 
upon  the  Church  and  the  Ministry  as  the  apologists  and  defend- 
ers of  the  wrong  committed  against  the  interests  of  the  people!  " 
Finally,  when  one  passes  from  the  organization  of  labor  to  the 
party  of  revolution  he  meets  a  temper  of  mind  which  is  not  only 
neutral  but  often  openly  hostile.  In  the  formal  problems  of 
revolutionary  socialism  religion  is,  it  is  true,  announced  to  be  a 
matter  of  private  concern,  and  Marx  himself  was  indisposed 
to  any  frontal  attack  upon  religion,  believing  that  the  law  of 
economic  determinism  would,  in  its  inevitable  fulfillment,  sweep 
away  this  illusion  with  the  other  products  of  capitalism.  "  For 
a  society,"  he  said,  "  whose  economic  methods  consist  in  dealing 
with  products  as  commodities  and  values,  Christianity  is  the  most 
appropriate  form  of  religion.  This  religious  reflection  of  the 
real  world  will  finally  vanish  when  the  conditions  of  practical 
life  establish  rational  relations  with  men  and  with  nature."  "  Re- 
ligion," wrote  Bebel,  "  will  not  be  abolished  or  God  dethroned. 
Without  attack  by  force  Religion  will  naturally  perish.  It  is 
a  transcendent  reflection  of  the  existing  social  order."  Thus 
the  social  revolutionists  join  hands  with  the  theological  reaction- 
ists in  their  distrust  of  any  intimacy  between  the  social  conscience 
and  the  religious  life.  On  the  one  hand  social  service  appears 
an  inadequate  substitute  for  religion,  on  the  other  hand  it  appears 
to  be  a  new  religion.     "  Socialism,"  Liebknecht  said,  "  is  at  once 


i88 

a  science  and  a  religion.  In  its  appeal  to  the  feelings  it  has  the 
entire  force  of  Christianity,  in  its  appeal  to  the  mind  it  has  all 
the  strength  of  science." 

If  then  the  gulf  between  these  two  teachings  seems  so  wide 
and  deep,  and  hesitancy  on  the  one  side  is  confronted  by  con- 
tempt on  the  other,  shall  we  conclude  that  the  Age  of  the  Social 
Conscience  is  to  be  a  time  when  the  religious  life  is  likely  to  lose 
its  momentum  and  power?  Is  the  Christian  church  occupied 
with  a  survival  rather  than  with  a  revival,  a  dead  issue  rather 
than  a  living  faith?  On  the  contrary,  such  a  conclusion  fails 
to  recognize  both  the  nature  of  the  social  conscience  and  the  na- 
ture of  the  religious  life.  If  religion  were  primarily  concerned 
with  ecclesiastical  machinery  and  dogmatic  definitions,  and  if  the 
social  conscience  were  concerned  with  nothing  but  an  economic 
problem  or  a  party  organization,  then  it  would  seem  unlikely 
that  the  two  undertakings  should  combine.  There  is  little  in 
common  between  debates  on  the  orders  of  clergy  or  the  condition 
of  sinners  after  death  and  discussions  on  the  eight-hour  day  or 
the  rent  on  land.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  both  religion  and 
the  social  conscience  are  interpretations  of  life;  if  both  are  pri- 
marily concerned  with  conduct,  duty,  desire,  hope;  then  it  is  not 
only  needless  but  impossible  to  hold  them  asunder.  The  religion 
which  is  fit  for  the  present  age  must  be  a  social  religion  and  the 
conscience  fit  for  the  present  age  must  be  a  social  conscience;  and 
the  most  pressing  problem  of  the  moment  is  to  determine  the 
points  of  coincidence  between  these  two  spiritual  forces  and  the 
direction  of  their  co-operation.  What  is  it  in  the  religious  life 
which  justifies  its  social  service  and  what  is  it  in  the  social  con- 
science which  reaffirms  the  religious  life? 

To  answer  these  questions  one  must  ask  another.  What  is  re- 
ligion, and  what  organ  of  expression  does  it  naturally  use? 
Here  we  meet  the  various  philosophies  of  religion  with  their  dif- 
ferent interpretations  of  the  religious  life.  Is  religious  experi- 
ence, they  inquire,  primarily  a  form  of  thought  or  a  movement  of 
emotion  or  a  decision  of  the  will?  Are  we  in  religion  primarily 
rationalists  or  mystics  or  moral  idealists?  Is  religion  a  doctrine 
or  a  feeling  or  a  pledge?  The  history  of  the  philosophy  of  reli- 
gion has  almost  exclusively  emphasized  the  first  two  of  these  con- 


i89 

ceptions.  Either,  as  with  Hegel,  the  reason  has  seemed  the  me- 
dium of  the  Eternal,  or,  with  Schleiermacher,  the  feelings  have 
opened  a  channel  of  communion  deeper  than  the  reason  could 
provide.  This  issue  between  the  rationalists  and  the  mystics  has 
usually  been  regarded  as  the  crux  of  the  philosophy  of  religion, 
as  though  between  these  two  alternatives  the  religious  life  must 
choose.  Is  there  not,  however,  a  third  way  of  communion  be- 
tween the  soul  and  the  Eternal,  a  path  which  leads  from  morality 
to  faith,  a  religious  experience  whose  beginning  is  in  the  will,  a 
road  accessible  to  those  whose  religion  begins  in  little  more  than 
a  simple  desire  to  do  their  duty?  This  is  the  path  to  the  reli- 
gious life  which  was  first  explored  by  Kant  and  has  now  been 
made  familiar  by  Fichte  and  by  Martineau.  It  begins  in  decision 
and  leads  to  insight.  Its  first  step  is  duty  and  its  last  reward  is 
vision.  "  Obedience,"  said  Robertson,  in  one  of  his  greatest  ser- 
mons, "  is  the  organ  of  spiritual  knowledge.  In  every  depart- 
ment of  knowledge  there  is  an  appropriate  organ  or  instrument 
for  the  discovery  of  truth.  Obedience  is  the  sole  organ  by  which 
we  gain  a  knowledge  of  that  which  cannot  be  seen  or  felt.  By 
doing  God's  will  we  recognize  what  He  is." 

When  one  turns  with  these  teachings  of  philosophy  to  the  Gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ  he  finds  them  strikingly  anticipated  and  con- 
firmed. Great  disclosures  of  truth  were  made  by  him  to  the  rea- 
son, and  high  emotions  invited  his  followers  to  imitation,  but  when 
we  trace  the  way  in  which  Jesus  habitually  drew  men  to  him- 
self, nothing  is  more  obvious  than  the  fact  that  he  appealed,  first 
of  all,  not  to  their  intellects  or  their  feelings,  but  to  their  wills. 
What  he  first  asks  is,  not  theological  accuracy  or  mystic  ecstasy, 
but  practical  obedience  and  moral  decision.  "  Follow  me,"  He 
says,  "  Take  up  thy  cross  and  follow.  He  that  willeth  to 
do  the  will  shall  know  the  doctrine."  The  dedication  of  the 
will  is  the  first  step  toward  the  religious  life;  it  is  not  the 
whole  of  religion,  it  is  perhaps  not  the  best  of  it,  but  it  is  the 
beginning  of  it.  Disclosures  of  truth  lie  beyond  this  decision 
of  the  will  and  high  moods  of  rapture  or  peace;  but  the  way  to 
these  heights  lies  up  the  steep  path  which  obedience  has  to  climb. 
And  here  is  where  numbers  of  persons  make  their  great  mistake. 
They  have   thought  they  could   be  Christians  with  their  minds 


or  with  their  hearts,  without  enlisting  their  wills.  They  have 
kept  their  religious  life  in  one  compartment  of  experience  where 
it  satisfies  their  reason  or  their  emotions  but  does  not  seriously 
affect  their  conduct.  "  Things  have  come  to  a  pretty  pass,"  Lord 
Melbourne  is  reported  to  have  said  after  hearing  an  evangelical 
sermon,  "  when  religion  is  allowed  to  invade  the  sphere  of  pri- 
vate life."  The  teaching  of  Jesus  demands  precisely  this  invasion 
of  private  life.  It  tolerates  no  schism  betw^een  the  mind  and  the 
will,  no  double  standard  of  living,  no  theological  bimetallism. 
The  silver  of  duty-doing  and  the  gold  of  religious  faith  are  in- 
terchangeable mediums  of  spiritual  exchange.  Service  is  the  cur- 
rent coin  of  the  unit  of  value,  and  as  it  accrues  it  becomes  religion. 
The  way  of  conscience  and  the  vision  of  faith,  ethics  and  reli- 
gion, idealism  and  theism,  are  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus  one 
continuous  process  which  has  its  beginning  in  the  appeal  to  the  will. 

"  Our  wills  are  ours  we  know  not  how, 
Our  wills  are  ours  to  make  them  thine." 

If,  then,  among  the  many  ways  to  the  religious  life  there  is 
one  which  leads  from  obedience  to  knowledge,  from  the  willing 
of  the  will  to  the  knowing  of  the  doctrine,  then  this  truth  has 
profound  significance  for  the  Age  of  the  Social  Conscience.  For 
what  is  this  wonderful  renaissance  of  special  responsibility  but  the 
dedication  of  the  will  on  an  unprecedented  scale  to  the  service 
of  the  modern  world;  and  is  not  this,  according  to  the  teaching 
of  modern  philosophy  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  the  first  step 
toward  practical  religion?  Very  far  removed  from  religion  much 
of  the  social  agitation  of  the  time  may  appear  to  be,  and  some  of 
those  who  are  concerned  with  it  may  even  protest  against  the  in- 
sinuation of  a  religious  aim ;  yet  this  unconsciousness  of  coopera- 
tion with  God  or  even  the  denial  of  it,  does  not  affect  the  fact  of 
that  cooperation.  Many  a  plowman  bending  over  his  furrow 
lifts  his  eyes  but  seldom  to  the  sun  which  none  the  less  p>ersuades 
his  crop;  many  a  sailor  takes  little  heed  of  the  laws  which  govern 
the  winds;  and  with  the  same  unconsciousness,  many  a  servant  of 
social  needs  stumbles  along  with  downcast  eyes  as  though  his  work 
were  but  routine  and  drudgery,  while  in  fact  as  he  trudges  along 
his  furrow  he  is  cooperating  with  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  or  as 


191 

he  navigates  the  troubled  sea  of  modern  life  he  is  running  down 
the  trade  wind  of  universal  law.  Never  were  so  many  people 
repelled  by  the  technicalities  of  religion,  yet  never  were  there 
so  many  people  of  whom  the  great  words  could  be  spoken :  "  Not 
every  one  that  said  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  but  he  that  doeth  the 
will  of  my  father;"  never  were  there  so  many  who  might  ask 
in  surprise :  "  When  saw  we  thee  hungry  and  fed  thee,  or  a 
stranger  and  took  thee  in?  "  are  fit  to  receive  the  answer:  "  In- 
asmuch as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  these  least,  ye  did  it  unto  me." 
In  a  word,  if  either  the  teaching  of  Jesus  or  the  teaching  of 
modern  philosophy  may  be  trusted,  this  awakening  of  the  so- 
cial conscience  represents,  not  an  abandonment  of  the  religious 
life  nor  yet  a  substitute  for  it,  but  a  way  —  not  yet  clearly 
marked  indeed,  but  traceable, —  along  which  the  modern  mind 
may  reach  a  religion  appropriate  to  its  needs.  The  theologians 
have  found  in  the  condition  of  the  world  which  opened  the  way 
for  the  extension  of  Christianity,  a  Divine  preparation  for  the 
new  faith  —  a  "  Preparatio  Evangelica "  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation. May  not  the  Social  Conscience  of  the  present  age 
open  the  way  to  another  revival  of  religion  and  be  the  "  Prepar- 
atio Evangelica"  of  the  twentieth  century?  It  is  perhaps  not 
the  straightest  path  to  faith;  it  is  certainly  not  the  only  path;  but 
for  many  persons  under  the  conditions  of  the  present  age  it  is  the 
path  most  immediately  open  and  it  is  not  so  important  what  path 
one  takes  as  it  is  that  he  shall  start  from  the  point  where  he  happens 
to  be  and  not  stop  until  the  end  is  reached.  A  young  man  enters 
my  office,  and  asks  with  ''vident  emotion :  "  Do  you  know  of  any 
Boys'  Club,  where  I  could  work?"  "What  is  the  matter,  my 
boy?"  I  ask,  "  Nothing  is  the  matter,"  he  answers,  "  I  am  not 
in  trouble;  but  my  ideals  are  losing  their  hold  on  my  life,  and 
I  thought  I  had  better  do  something  for  somebody  else."  What 
was,  in  reality,  happening  to  that  young  soul?  Whatever  it  was, 
it  had  to  utter  itself  in  the  language  of  the  present  age,  which  is 
the  Age  of  the  Social  Question.  A  spiritual  desire  took  the  form 
of  a  social  service.  But  was  it  not  the  touch  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  had  moved  this  life  from  lethargy  and  self-interest;  the 
same  touch  which  in  other  ages  has  brought  thousands  to  con- 
fession  of  sin   or  conversion   of  heart?     And  must  not   teachers 


192 

of  religion  be  alert  to  recognize  the  new  ways  in  which  the  life 
of  God  may  lead  the  life  of  man,  and  welcome  the  doing  of  the 
Will  as  a  first  step  to  a  knowing  of  the  Doctrine? 

And  if  it  be  true  that  the  social  conscience  and  the  religious 
life  are  thus  to  be  regarded,  neither  as  competitors  nor  as  alter- 
natives, but  as  successive  experiences  and  logical  steps  in  the  edu- 
cation of  the  human  race,  then  there  follow  from  this  truth  two 
practical  consequences  of  the  utmost  importance.  The  first  may 
be  described  as  the  spiritualization  of  the  social  movement  and 
the  second  may  be  described  as  the  socialization  of  the  religious 
life.  What,  on  the  one  hand,  is  the  most  immediate  peril  which 
threatens  the  Social  movement?  It  is  the  peril  of  a  practical 
materialism,  the  interpretation  of  a  great  human  movement  in 
terms  of  machinery,  the  expectation  that  a  change  in  economic 
methods  will  of  itself  produce  a  change  of  heart.  And  what, 
to  state  the  case  from  the  other  side,  is  the  chief  source  of  hope 
and  courage  in  the  movement  of  social  service?  It  is  the  dis- 
covery, which  many  minds  at  many  points  of  this  great  adventure 
are  now  making,  that  beneath  the  forms  of  economic  change  there 
is  proceeding  a  spiritual  enterprise  which  the  present  age  is  called 
to  serve.  A  woman,  for  example,  concerns  herself  with  the  ad- 
ministration of  charity,  and  the  problems  which  confront  her, 
of  Avages,  housing,  idleness,  food  and  drink,  may  seem  to  be 
wholly  affairs  of  economic  conditions  and  material  wants.  This 
external  aspect  of  her  task  may  almost  extinguish  its  spiritual 
significance,  as  a  flame  flickers  and  dies  where  the  atmosphere 
is  foul.  What  room  is  there,  she  may  ask,  for  religious  idealism 
in  so  unspiritual  a  task?  "Give  me  the  luxuries  of  life,"  Mr. 
Motley  once  humorously  said,  "  and  I  can  dispense  with  the 
necessities ;  "  and  it  may  well  seem  to  this  servant  of  the  poor 
that  the  high  doctrines  of  religion  are  offering  her  the  luxuries 
of  philosophy,  while  the  necessities  of  existence  still  remain  un- 
supplied.  Must  she  not,  then,  abandon  her  spiritual  ideals,  and 
apply  herself  to  the  terrible  concrete  facts  of  her  immediate  work? 
On  the  contrary,  the  spiritualization  of  charity  is  essential  both 
to  efficiency  and  courage.  Nothing  redeems  the  work  of  relief 
from  dullness  and  despondency  except  the  capacity  for  spiritual 
vision.     Let  the  agent  of  relief  forget  her  idealism,  and  she  be- 


193 

comes  a  social  mechanic,  an  official,  or  a  statistician,  and  is  on 
the  high  road  to  discouragement,  perfunctoriness  and  despair. 
The  mechanism  of  her  task  can  be  endured  only  as  she  discerns  the 
meaning  of  her  task.  Her  faith  is  not  a  luxury  but  a  necessity. 
She  is  patient  with  the  real  because  she  beholds  the  ideal.  The 
unresponsive  life  before  her  is  a  symbol  of  her  hope,  and  becomes 
transfigured  into  interest,  picturesqueness  and  sanctity.  Sir 
Launfal,  seeking  for  the  Holy  Grail,  left  unnoticed  the  leper  at 
his  door;  but  as  he  returned  from  that  distant  quest,  the  ideal 
he  had  sought  was  revealed  to  him  in  the  duty  he  had  ignored, 
and: 

"  The  leper  no  longer  crouched  by  his  side, 
But   stood  before   him,  glorified, 
Shining,  and  tall,  and  fair,  and  straight. 
As  the  pillar  that  stood  by  the  Beautiful  Gate." 

The  same  story  may  be  told  in  the  language  of  the  industrial 
world  of  many  an  employer,  who  is  converting  economic  life  into 
an  instrument  of  justice;  and  of  many  an  employee  who  is  offering 
to  business  life  a  fidelity  and  efficiency  for  which  no  wage-sys- 
tem can  pay.  These  men  may  fancy  themselves  far  removed 
from  the  influence  of  the  spiritual  life.  They  may  listen  but  lan- 
guidly to  the  preachers  of  other  worldllness.  They  may  conceive 
of  the  Christian  ministry  as  a  useless  caste,  and  of  the  Christian 
church  as  of  a  capitalist-club.  They  are  too  busy  to  be  pious 
and  too  conscious  of  temptation  to  be  saints.  And  jet,  if  the 
Christian  life  is  to  have  any  place  in  the  modern  world,  it  must 
be  precisely  where  these  men  are  set,  in  the  heat  of  the  world's 
work  and  the  noise  of  the  world's  care  and  the  worst  of  disasters, 
alike  for  religion  and  for  business,  is  to  separate  the  one  from 
the  other.  When  Jesus  looked  about  him  for  the  habit  of  life 
which  he  desired  to  commend,  he  found  it  most  conspicuously 
in  those  people  who  were  doing,  as  it  should  be  done,  the  com- 
mon work  of  the  business  world.  The  investor  of  his  talents; 
the  porter  at  the  gate;  the  farmer  in  the  field;  the  merchant  with 
his  pearls ;  the  woman  at  her  house  work ;  —  how  common  and 
worldly;  —  how  far  from  the  religion  of  the  Scribes  and  the 
Pharisees,  were  these  types  of  holiness!  Yet  of  these  common- 
place people,  who  had  thus  spiritualized  their  Social  Question  so 


194 

that  their  daily  business  could  meet  the  test  of  Christ,  he  said: 
"  Of  such  is  the  Kingdom  of  Keaven."  It  is  the  same  to-day. 
Lawrence  Oliphant  once  said  that  the  greatest  need  of  modern 
England  was  a  "  spiritually-minded  man  of  the  world," —  a  man, 
that  is  to  say,  who  could  be  in  the  world,  yet  not  subdued  to  that 
he  worked  in,  and  who  found  it  not  impossible  to  do  the  world's 
work  with  a  spiritual  mind.  He  is  like  a  potter,  molding  his 
clay;  he  does  not  wash  his  hands  of  it  because  it  soils  them,  or 
dabble  in  it  like  a  little  boy  for  the  sake  of  getting  dirty;  but  he 
uses  it  just  as  it  is  and  shapes  it  into  the  forms  of  use  or  beauty 
which  are  possible  under  the  limits  of  the  clay.  Precisely  such 
material  is  offered  by  the  modern  business  world,  and  the  spiritu- 
ally-minded man  of  the  world  does  not  dabble  in  its  dirt,  or  run 
away  from  it  because  it  is  unclean,  but  shapes  it  into  the  use  and 
beauty  to  which,  just  as  it  is,  it  may  be  applied.  No  harder  test 
was  ever  offered  to  the  spiritual  life  than  this  demand  that  it 
shall  adapt  itself  to  the  material  conditions  of  an  industrial  de- 
mocracy. The  new  spirituality  must  be  shaped  out  of  the  com- 
mon clay  of  commercial  conditions,  and  hardened  in  the  fire  of 
industrial  temptation,  and  those  who  can  meet  this  test  have  spir- 
itualized their  social  question  and  found  in  it  the  instrument  of 
a  consistent  religious  faith. 

And  if  religion  is  thus  called  to  spiritualize  the  Social  Ques- 
tion, so  —  on  the  other  hand  —  the  Social  Question  is  called  to 
socialize  the  religious  life.  The  religion  of  individualism  which 
has  dominated  Christian  thought  for  many  generations  has  be- 
come as  impotent  to  interpret  the  modern  world  as  the  economics 
or  the  politics  of  individualism.  Through  the  modern  miracles 
of  invention,  discovery,  exploration,  and  intercommunication,  the 
world  has  become,  as  never  before  in  its  history,  a  unit  instead  of 
a  series  of  disconnected  interests  and  aims.  The  problems  of  the 
time  are  world-problems,  and  the  power  of  each  part  is  its  world- 
power.  What  the  Apostle  Paul  wrote  of  the  Christian  church 
has  become  realized  of  the  whole  social  order.  We  are  members 
of  one  body,  and  the  strength  or  weakness  of  each  member  is  the 
health  or  sickness  of  the  whole.  And  if  it  is  thus  true  that  the 
civilization  of  the  twentieth  century  is  to  be  in  an  unprecedented 
degree  socialized,  then  the  religion  of  the  twentieth  century,  if  it 


195 

would  continue  to  be  a  factor  in  its  civilization,  must  socialize 
its  ideals  and  must  save  people,  not  singly  but  together,  as  pros- 
perous and  poor,  as  employers  and  employed,  as  white  and  black, 
as  Oriental  and  Occidental.  The  socialization  of  religion  calls 
for  a  new  spirit  in  missions,  a  new  expansion  of  the  church,  a 
new  definition  of  the  ministry,  and  a  new  realization  of  the  pur- 
pose of  Jesus  when  he  "  came  into  Galilee  preaching  the  Gospel 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God."  It  is  often  said  that  the  profession 
of  the  ministry  has  lost  its  hold  on  the  modern  world,  and  that 
the  future  of  the  Christian  Church  is  imperiled  by  lack  of  men 
to  serve  her.  The  socialization  of  religion  points  to  quite  an- 
other conclusion.  What  is  really  happening  is  not  so  much  a  de- 
cline of  the  Christian  ministry,  as  an  expansion  of  it,  into  ways 
of  service  which  have  not  yet  become  recognized  as  legitimate 
branches  of  the  profession,  but  which  would  certainly  have  com- 
mended themselves  to  Jesus  Christ  as  appropriate  for  his  disci- 
pleship.  Must  the  Christian  ministry  be  defined  as  exclusively 
a  talking  profession ;  or  may  it  count  among  its  members  that 
great  body  of  self-effacing  servants  of  the  common  good  who 
are  going  up  and  down  the  modern  world,  not  to  be  ministered 
unto  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  their  lives  a  ransom  for  many? 
Did  not  Jesus  himself,  when  he  opened  the  Book  to  read  of  his 
own  mission,  find  the  place  where  it  was  written :  "  The  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  He  hath  anointed  me  to  preach 
good  tidings  to  the  poor,  and  the  opening  of  the  eyes  to  the  blind, 
and  the  setting  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised  ;"  and  are  not 
they  who  serve  the  poor  and  blind  and  bruised  of  this  present 
age,  converting  the  Age  of  the  Social  Question  into  an  accepta- 
ble year  of  the  Lord?  Students  for  the  ministry  and  pastors  of 
Christian  churches  may  well  take  heart  again  as  they  observe  this 
expansion  of  their  calling,  which  gives  them  new  allies  and  new 
hope.  The  ecclesiasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages  may  have  in- 
volved many  mistaken  conceptions  of  the  Church  and  the  min- 
istry, but  on  this  point  at  least  it  has  much  to  teach  the  modern 
world.  It  assumed  that  the  whole  of  life  lay  within  the  prov- 
ince of  the  church.  Not  preachers  and  monks  alone,  but  schol- 
ars and  artists,  lay-brothers  and  nursing  sisters,  had  their  legiti- 
mate offices  within  the  sphere  of  Christian  work,  and  the  hum- 


196 

blest  servant  ploughing  the  fields  of  the  monastery  or  washing 
the  utensils  of  the  scullery,  was  conscious  of  doing  a  sacred  task 
for  whose  success  he  might  fitly  ask  his  Master's  help.  Vastly 
more  generous  and  inclusive  is  the  new  conception  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry  which  offers  itself  to  the  present  age.  It  includes 
not  merely  priests  and  preachers,  with  their  still  indispensable 
functions  of  religious  leadership,  and  not  alone  the  technical  and 
conscious  offices  of  the  organized  church,  but  the  great  company 
of  sincere  and  faithful  servants  of  the  world's  great  needs,  the 
prophets  of  the  better  social  order  and  the  instruments  of  indus- 
trial justice  and  peace.  Never  was  the  Christian  ministry,  as  thus 
largely  conceived,  more  adequately  manned  or  more  loyally 
served ;  and  never  did  the  ministers  of  religion  have  more  right 
to  confidence  and  courage  than  in  this  sense  of  large  alliance 
with  the  social  conscience  of  the  modern  world. 

Here,  then,  is  an  approach  to  an  answer  of  the  question  with 
which  we  began.  The  Social  Conscience  and  the  Religious  Life 
are  not  two  ways  of  living,  but  one  continuous  path,  along 
which  the  duty  of  the  present  time  is  led  toward  the  Eternal.  Up 
the  way  of  the  Social  Conscience  toil  the  servants  of  the  modern 
world;  and  on  that  steep  path  they  meet  the  Master  of  the  Re- 
ligious Life,  saying,  "  Follow  me,"  "  Take  up  your  cross  and  fol- 
low." The  farther  they  go,  and  the  higher  ground  they  gain,  the 
clearer  becomes  their  vision  of  the  world  at  their  feet.  The  do- 
ing of  their  duty  has  brought  them  where  they  see  things  in  true 
perspective  and  proportion.  They  have  —  as  Robert  Louis  Ste- 
venson said  of  Jesus  Christ  —  not  so  much  views  of  things,  as  a 
view.  The  limited  horizon  of  their  Ethics  enlarges  into  the 
infinite  horizon  of  their  Religion.  And  finally  they  discover 
that  they  have  not  climbed  alone,  but  have  been  all  along  the  way 
guided  and  led.  Through  the  silences  of  duty  they  hear  the 
summons  of  the  Eternal ;  and  the  call  of  the  Social  Conscience 
becomes  not  only  a  call  to  man,  but  not  less  clearly  a  call  from 
God. 


197 
RELIGION  AND  POLITICS 

HON.   F.    J.    SWAYZE,    JUSTICE   SUPREME   COURT   OF    NEW   JERSEY 

The  subject  at  first  assigned  to  me  —  The  duty  of  Religious 
people  towards  Honest  Politics  —  left  no  room  for  discussion. 
The  duty  to  support  and  encourage  honest  politics  is  plain,  and  the 
duty  of  religious  people  is  neither  less  nor  greater  than  that  of 
all  good  citizens.  The  title  contained  a  suggestion  that  there 
might  be  politics  of  another  kind,  and  there  has  recently  been 
a  good  deal  in  magazines  and  newspapers  to  indicate  a  widespread 
belief  that  politics  is  necessarily  dishonest  and  corrupt.  If  such 
were  the  fact,  our  outlook  for  the  future  would  be  a  hopeless 
one,  since  almost  every  step  in  advance,  and  almost  every  reform 
must  necessarily  require  political  action.  Fortunately  the  sub- 
ject you  chose  contained  also  a  clear  intimation  that  politics 
might  be  honest.  It  is  a  hopeful  sign  that  the  tendency  is  so  de- 
cidedly away  from  the  rule  of  corruption  and  dishonest}^  toward 
the  rule  of  real  political  leaders,  dealing  not  merely  with  the 
traffic  in  public  offices  and  the  sale  of  legislative  favors,  but  with 
live  public  questions  upon  great  considerations  of  public  policy. 
With  politics  of  this  higher  kind  religion  has  close  relations. 

There  was  a  time  when  the  political  conduct  of  man  was  de- 
termined by  their  religious  views.  At  the  time  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation,  the  great  public  questions  were  so  involved  with 
men's  theological  opinions,  and  their  theological  views  were  so 
interwoven  with  their  political  conduct,  that  a  man's  politics 
and  his  religion  were  synonymous,  and  the  political  parties  were 
either  Catholic  or  Protestant.  Only  great  rulers,  like  Henry  IV 
of  France  or  Elizabeth  of  England,  could  rise  superior  to  mere 
theological  differences  and  realize  that  a  man  might  be  a  patriotic 
Englishman  although  a  Catholic,  or  a  patriotic  Frenchman  al- 
though a  Protestant.  We  in  our  time  can  hardly  appreciate, 
and  certainly  cannot  share,  the  feeling  that  looked  on  the  Pope 
as  a  possible  final  arbiter  of  controversies,  or  the  intense  oppo- 
sition which  this  feeling  encountered.  The  growth  of  the  spirit 
of  religious  freedom  and  the  rise  of  modern  nationalities  claim- 
ing the  affection  and  allegiance  once  claimed  by  the  church  have 


198 

produced  a  tremendous  change,  and  to-day,  the  old  theological 
opinions  have  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  political  conduct 
of  reasonable  men.  When  the  old  spirit  crops  out,  it  is  almost 
confined  to  men  of  narrow  minds  and  to  regions  remote  from 
the  great  intellectual  centers.  Recent  events  have  shown  forcibly 
how  weak  and  unimportant  this  mediaeval  spirit  has  become  in 
the  Twentieth  century.  Fortunately  for  us  in  the  United  States, 
the  spirit  which  prevailed  when  our  governments  were  formed 
was  the  spirit  of  Roger  Williams  and  William  Penn  and  Lord 
Baltimore,  a  spirit  which  found  expression  in  my  own  State  of 
New  Jersey  in  the  concessions  of  Berkeley  and  Carteret  in  1664, 
and  1665,  immediately  after  the  conquest  of  the  Dutch  Colony 
of  New  Netherlands  by  the  English,  and  a  few  months  after  the 
land  had  been  conveyed  to  them  by  the  Duke  of  York.  Those 
concessions  provided  that  no  persons  should  be  at  any  time  in  any 
way  molested,  punished,  disquieted,  or  called  in  question  for  any 
difference  of  opinion  or  practice  in  matters  of  religious  concern- 
ments, who  did  not  actually  disturb  the  civil  peace  of  the  prov- 
ince, and  that  all  persons  should  freely  and  fully  have  and  enjoy 
his  and  their  judgments  and  consciences  in  matters  of  religion, 
they  behaving  themselves  peaceably  and  quietly,  and  not  using 
this  liberty  to  licentiousness,  or  to  the  civil  injury  or  outward  dis- 
turbance of  others.  The  concessions  most  significantly  add : 
"  Any  law,  statute,  usage  or  custom  of  the  realm  of  England  to 
the  contrary  thereof  in  any  wise  notwithstanding."  The  spirit 
of  religious  catholicity  which  breathes  in  those  concessions  marks 
the  difference  between  the  fundamental  conceptions  on  w'hich 
our  American  governments  were  founded  and  the  conception 
which  then  prevailed  in  England,  when  people  were  made  frantic 
by  the  Popish  plot,  or  in  France  where  a  few  years  later  the 
bigotry  of  Louis  XIV  brought  about  the  revocation  of  the 
edict  of  Nantes.  We  in  this  country  are  fortunate  in  a  liberal 
beginning,  in  the  development  and  spread  of  the  spirit  which  di- 
vorces theological  convictions  from  political  action,  and  requires 
our  governments  to  allow  the  utmost  liberality  of  religious  opin- 
ion, or  even  want  of  religious  opinion.  We  are  fortunate  also 
because  the  spirit  of  the  early  days  is  with  us  still.  This  inti- 
mate  union    between    religion    and    politics   resulted   not   only   in 


199 

this  spirit  of  religious  freedom,  but  that  went  hand  in  hand 
with  the  spirit  of  political  liberty,  which,  as  Burke  said,  was  fos- 
tered by  the  fact  that  the  prevailing  religious  views  of  the  colo- 
nies were  not  the  views  of  a  government  but  of  a  variety  of  de- 
nominations agreeing  in  nothing  but  in  the  communion  of  the 
spirit  of  liberty.  How  much  this  spirit  of  political  liberty  was 
helped  by  the  prevalence  of  Calvinistic  theology  which  recognized 
God  alone  as  the  supreme  Ruler,  we  cannot  tell,  but  religious 
liberals  must  recognize  our  own  indebtedness  to  the  Calvinistic 
churches  from  which  many  of  us  have  sprung,  as  well  as  the  lib- 
erality of  practice  of  those  with  which  we  are  in  daily  contact. 
It  was  no  light  service  that  religion  rendered  to  politics  in  estab- 
lishing by  the  very  conflict  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries,  the  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  which  are 
set  forth  in  our  bills  of  rights.  And  it  was  no  accident  that  the 
first  general  assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church  was  so  nearly 
contemporaneous  with  the  meeting  of  the  Federal  Convention  of 

1787. 

The  union  between  religion  and  politics  has  long  since  ceased, 
but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  influence  of  one  upon  the  other  is, 
or  even  ought  to  be,  at  an  end.  "  Religion,"  says  Matthew  Ar- 
nold, "  is  that  which  binds  and  holds  us  to  the  practice  of  right- 
eousness." If  we  limit  our  definition  of  religion  as  Arnold  lim- 
its it,  the  relation  between  religion  and  politics  ought  to  be 
Intimate.  Religion  would  then  deal  with  the  theoretical  ethical 
basis  of  public  conduct,  and  politics  with  the  practical  achieve- 
ment of  what  is  right.  Such  a  consummation.  Is,  of  necessity, 
only  a  dream.  Most  men  would  regard  Arnold's  conception  of 
religion  as  too  hazy  and  nebulous,  and  the  time  Is  far  distant.  If 
indeed  it  ever  comes,  when  religion  will  be  so  Identified  with 
ethics  by  the  majority,  and  the  time  is  still  more  remote  when 
politics  Is  to  become  the  practice  of  righteousness.  It  is  remote 
because  In  political  conduct  we  must  always  deal  with  the  hopes 
and  passions  and  the  fears  of  men,  who,  by  temperament,  education 
and  environment,  honestly  take  different  views  of  public  ques- 
tions even  when  they  are  not  self-deluded  by  their  self-interest 
so  that  they  translate  their  individual  advantage  or  their  inherited 
prejudices   into  m.axims  of  conduct  which   they  sincerely  regard 


200 

as  ethical.  The  practical  man  of  affairs  is  compelled,  if  he  de- 
sires to  accomplish  anything,  to  ask  himself  often,  not  whether 
a  particular  line  of  conduct  is  right,  but  whether  it  is  expedient; 
and  even  those  who  go  most  directly  to  the  proper  goal  are  com- 
pelled to  be,  to  some  extent  at  least,  opportunists.  Religion  in 
its  broadest  sense  asks  of  a  line  of  conduct,  "  Is  it  right?  "  Poli- 
tics asks,  "  Is  it  expedient  or  opportune?"  A  statesman  cannot 
steer  his  course  directly  to  the  harbor  and  plunge  through  wave 
and  storm  like  a  great  steamer  driven  by  tremendous  power 
vinithin;  he  must  rather  tack  and  trim  his  sails  to  catch  the  breeze; 
and  all  that  we  can  fairly  ask  is  that  in  the  long  run  he  shall 
prove  to  have  steered  a  true  course.  It  is  because  men  in  public 
life  must  compromise  and  yield  in  order  to  secure  their  main  ob- 
ject, that  the  question  whether  a  man  is  a  mere  politician  or 
really  a  statesman  is  so  often  left  in  doubt  until  after  he  is  dead. 

The  difference  in  the  point  of  view  does  not  prevent  the  in- 
teraction of  religion  and  politics  one  upon  the  other.  Such 
interaction  is  inevitable  with  two  subjects  of  such  vast  consequence 
as  the  theoretical  ethical  basis  of  public  conduct  and  the  attempt 
to  secure  its  actual  realization. 

One  of  the  great  dangers  in  public  life  is  that  the  great  gen- 
eral principles  which  have  actuated  the  past  and  become  the  ax- 
ioms of  conduct  may,  by  their  very  success,  become  mere  com- 
monplaces, and  be  lost  sight  of  or  disregarded  in  the  strenuous 
effort  to  accomplish  practical  results  of  apparent  immediate  im- 
portance. Our  political  principles  may  become  atrophied  for 
want  of  question  and  discussion.  The  great  principles  of  relig- 
ious freedom  and  political  liberty  which  occupied  the  attention 
of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries,  are 
in  danger  of  being  forgotten  for  want  of  the  debate  which  at- 
tended their  establishment.  They  arose  out  of  the  fierce  heat 
of  political  conflict;  they  may  perish  because  it  is  no  longer  nec- 
essary to  struggle  in  their  behalf. 

"  Our  hearts  grow  cold, 
We  lightly  hold 

A  right  which  brave  men  died  to  gain ; 
The  stake,   the  cord. 
The    axe,    the    sword, 
Grim  nurses  at  its  birth  of  pain." 


20I 

Citizens  of  foreign  birth  often  seem  to  have  a  better  knowl- 
edge and  a  greater  appreciation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
our  government  than  many  native  born  Americans  who  take 
their  inheritance  as  a  matter  of  course  without  stopping  to  con- 
sider its  value.  Our  constitutional  guarantees  themselves  have 
weakened  the  individual  sense  of  responsibility  on  the  part  of 
the  legislator  and  the  private  citizen.  It  is  assumed  that  if  an  act 
of  legislation  is  wrong,  the  courts  will  find  a  way  to  declare  it 
unconstitutional.  The  courts  cannot  often  do  so;  their  power 
is  not  and  ought  not  to  be  unlimited ;  they  do  not,  and  they  ought 
not  to,  act  as  a  third  house  of  the  legislature.  What  is  needed 
is  a  quickening  of  the  individual  conscience  to  a  sense  of  indi- 
vidual responsibility  in  public  conduct,  and  this  is  a  very  proper 
Avork  for  religion.  •  It  is  especially  proper  at  a  time  like  the  pres- 
ent when  the  old  theological  conceptions  have  largely  spent  their 
force,  and  men  are  coming  to  hold  their  political  convictions  and 
their  economic  views  with  the  same  fervor  with  which  they  once 
held  to  their  theological  convictions. 

The  founders  of  our  government  were  familiar  with  the  doc- 
trines of  political  liberty  advocated  by  Locke  as  the  necessary 
ethical  foundation  of  the  "  glorious  revolution  "  of  1689,  and 
taught  by  Montesquieu  and  Rousseau.  Locke  and  Montesquieu 
and  Rousseau  are  no  longer  read  by  men  of  affairs.  The 
great  questions  at  issue  no  longer  concern  the  liberty  of  the  indi- 
vidual; they  are  questions  of  economics,  which  have  arisen  with 
the  tremendous  creation  of  power  through  the  utilization  of 
steam  and  electricity  in  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
The  churches  are  to-day  giving  their  attention  to  efforts  to  se- 
cure the  material  well-being  of  the  people,  and  the  study  of 
sociology  is  said  to  be  supplanting  the  study  of  Hebrew  in  the 
theological  seminaries.  No  doubt  this  is  proper,  but  if  in  the 
effort  to  secure  the  material  comforts  of  the  present  we  reject 
the  fundamental  principles  which  make  material  comfort  possible 
for  larger  numbers  than  enjoyed  it  centuries  ago,  and  adopt  new 
notions  which  discard  the  experience  of  the  past,  we  may  find 
that  we  have  made  a  sad  exchange  of  old  lamps  for  new. 
"  We  have  a  religion,"  cries  a  character  in  a  popular  play,  "  and 
it   is  socialism."     Now   socialism   rests   fundamentally   upon   the 


202 

idea  that  each  man  will  work   for  the  benefit  of  all  as  well  as 
he  will  for  his  own  individual  interest.     I  am  by  nature  and  by 
training  a  conservative,  but  I  am  not  so  conservative  as  to  think 
there   is   no   room   for   improvement.     I   am   convinced    that   the 
era  of  freedom  of  contract  is  better  for  the  human  race  than  the 
era  of  the  feudal  system,  but  it  may  be  that  as  the  great  world 
spins  forever  down  the  ringing  grooves  of  change,  human  nature 
may  become  so  perfect  that  our  old-fashioned  maxims  will  be- 
come out  of  date.     I  fear  that  the  time  is  still  in  the  far  distant 
future.     The   experience   of   our   municipal    governments   is   not 
reassuring.     Meantime   we  are    forced    into   a   discussion    of  the 
most  fundamental  conceptions  of  society,   involving  even  the  in- 
stitution of  marriage  and  the  right  of  private  property,  and  the 
limitations  to  be  imposed  upon  the  right  of  inheritance.     If  men 
are  coming  to  hold  their  economic  notions  with  the  force  of  reli- 
gious convictions,  religion  has  a  tremendous  task  before  it  in  the 
political    sphere.     In    comparison    with    this    task,    the    struggle 
against  briber>^,  and  corruption,  and  graft,  whether  in  their  more 
gross   or    their    more   subtle    forms,    becomes   quite   insignificant. 
These  are  but  symptoms.     The  disease  lies  deeper.     Changes  in 
human  society  are  bound  to  come  and  we  can  look  forward  to 
them  courageously  if  they  are  to  come  in  the  future  as  they  have 
come   into   English   and   American   institutions   in   the   past  by  a 
process  of  evolution  and  not  by  a  process  of  revolution.     Freedom 
has  broadened  slowly  down  from  precedent  to  precedent,  and  so- 
cial progress  will  be  faster  if  we  go  straight  forward  slowly,  step 
by  step,  than  if  we  find  a  more  rapid  advance  checked  by  "  back- 
ward swinging  curves."     I   distrust  the  a  priori  speculations  of 
the  closet  philosopher,  and  believe  that  the  success  of  a  social  sys- 
tem depends  upon  the  general  average  of  public  intelligence  and 
public  virtue  m.ore  than  upon  any  governmental  system  or  upon 
legislation.     To  raise  the  average  of  public  virtue  and  public  in- 
telligence is  the  great  work  for  religion.     This  is  peculiarly  the 
case  in  a  popular  government.     Such  a  government  naturally  is 
inclined   to  devote   itself  to  securing  the  material  well-being  of 
the  citizen,   and  to  lead  men   to  a  consideration  of  their  rights 
rather   than   of   their   duties.     Our  very  prosperity   and    the   in- 
crease of  wealth  which  has  followed  our  greater  mastery  over  the 


203 

forces  of  nature,  bring  added  dangers  in  their  train.  The  thirst 
for  pleasure,  avarice,  the  gambling  spirit,  the  spirit  of  municipal 
pride  and  intrigue  to  which  Ferrero  traces  the  downfall  of  the 
Roman  Republic;  and  the  moral  vices  of  luxury,  frivolity,  moral 
degradation,  corruption  of  justice,  the  mixture  of  civic  arrogance 
and  civic  indifference,  the  spirit  of  chicanery^,  the  domination  of 
a  little  minority  of  rich  men,  and  the  servility  of  the  numerous 
poor,  to  which  he  attributes  the  poverty  of  Greece,  are  sure  to 
arise  when  men  think  only  of  their  own  rights  and  their  own 
comfort,  and  not  of  the  rights  of  others.  These  vices  are  with 
us  now  as  they  were  with  the  Greeks  of  the  age  of  Pericles,  the 
Romans  of  the  later  Republic,  and  the  Italians  of  the  renaissance. 
The  parallel  between  the  political  situation  and  the  economic 
conditions  and  the  social  wants  of  those  times  and  of  the  present 
sometimes  seems  complete. 

The  story  of  the  establishment  of  the  power  of  the  Medici  in 
Florence,  the  Sforzas  and  VIscontis  at  Milan,  the  Caesars  at 
Rome,  is  not  so  very  different  from  the  story  of  the  rise  of  Tam- 
many in  New  York,  and  of  the  numerous  rings  and  factions 
which  control  our  municipalities.  Thoughtful  men  often  won- 
der whether  a  like  downfall  of  our  social  system  will  follow-.  It 
is  in  wealthy  and  prosperous  societies  under  the  forms  of  popular 
government  that  the  religious  spirit  is  most  needed.  The  great 
work  to  be  done  is  to  enforce  upon  men  a  consideration  of  their 
duties  as  well  as  their  rights,  so  that  they  may  not  think  it  suffi- 
cient to  say,  with  the  Epicurean,  "  Let  us  eat,  drink  and  be 
merry,  for  to-morrow  we  die,"  or  with  the  Frenchman,  "  After 
us  the  deluge,"  but  may  consider  others  as  well  as  themselves, 
the  future  as  well  as  the  present.  Politics  naturally  deals  with 
men's  rights;  religion  naturally  and  properly  deals  wnth  their 
duties,  and  the  one  ought  to  serve  as  a  check  upon  the  other.  It 
is  not  enough  to  devise  new  legislation,  new^  primary  laws,  new 
registration  laws,  new  ballot  laws.  These  may  indeed  prevent 
some  of  the  more  open  and  grosser  forms  of  fraud,  but  legislative 
machinery  alone  will  not  bring  about  good  government,  unless 
the  majority  of  the  voters  demand  it;  and  if  the  majority  really 
demand  it,  the  lack  of  proper  machiner\'  may  delay  but  cannot 
in  the  long  run  prevent  the  accomplishment  of  their  wishes.     Poll- 


204 

ticians  are  not  so  much  leaders  as  led,  and  we  see  often  enough 
how  anxious  they  are  to  catch  the  popular  breeze.  Keeping  your 
ear  to  the  ground  is  a  feat  not  unknown  in  our  political  history. 
It  is  far  more  important  that  the  heart  of  the  people  should  be 
right  and  under  the  control  of  a  sensible  head  than  that  the  ma- 
chinery for  the  expression  of  the  popular  will  should  be  perfect. 
Indeed  the  very  perfection  of  political  machinery  involves  the 
dangerous  necessity  of  having  skilled  machinists  to  run  it.  A 
man  ignorant  of  mechanics  cannot  be  trusted  with  a  modem 
locomotive  or  the  great  engines  of  the  Mauretania.  Perhaps  I 
am  treading  on  the  hot  ashes  of  political  conflict,  but  is  it  too 
much  to  remind  5^ou  that  the  direct  primary  although  intended 
to  facilitate  the  rule  of  the  majority,  depends  for  the  successful 
accomplishment  of  that  result  upon  the  assumption  that  every  citi- 
zen will  take  enough  interest  to  vote  and  that  his  choice  will  be 
narrowed  to  one  of  two.  If,  however,  every  citizen  does  not 
choose  to  vote  but  only  those  vote  who  have  a  personal  interest 
to  serve,  and  if  the  choice  is,  as  generally  happens,  a  choice  of 
several,  is  there  not  danger  that  the  plurality  will  be  on  the 
side  of  the  more  thoroughly  organized  and  better  disciplined 
body  of  voters,  who  have  a  personal  interest  in  the  result  and 
make  a  trade  of  politics.  If  the  weapon  is  a  good  one,  it  helps 
only  those  who  avail  themselves  of  its  aid. 

Or  take,  if  j'ou  please,  the  other  popular  suggestion  of  the  day, — 
the  recall.  No  doubt  it  is  a  great  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the 
public  against  an  unfaithful  servant.  It  is  equally  potent,  how- 
ever, to  destroy  the  independence  of  a  faithful  official  who  is 
manfully  withstanding  in  the  interest  of  justice  and  right  the 
popular  clamor  of  the  moment;  and  it  is  a  weapon  which  may 
prove  of  great  value  also  to  powerful  political  organizations 
against  a  too  independent  and  conscientious  representative.  Im- 
agine Burke  voting  against  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  Bristol  or 
Senator  Lamar  defying  the  mandate  of  the  Mississippi  legislature, 
if  the  electors  or  the  legislators  had  had  the  right  of  recall. 

No  doubt  there  are  two  sides  to  these  questions.  I  can  only 
guess  in  advance  on  which  side  the  balance  of  advantage  will  lie. 
But  I  am  quite  sure  that  the  success  of  any  scheme  in  securing 
better  government  will  depend  upon  the  courage,  virtue  and  patri- 


205 

otism  of  individual  citizens.  All  the  political  machinery  in  the 
world  will  not  supply  the  place  of  conscientious  and  intelligent 
conviction.  Religion  can  supply  not  only  the  instruction  but  the 
stimulus.  The  idea  is  an  old  one.  Let  me  quote  from  a  recent 
book:  "Savonarola  taught  his  congregation  that  every  vote  en- 
tailed a  solemn  responsibility;  a  single  bean  wrongly  given  might 
prove  the  ruin  of  the  state.  The  elector  must  have  in  view  the 
glory  of  God,  the  welfare  of  the  community,  the  honor  of  the 
state;  he  ought  not  to  nominate  a  candidate  from  private  mo- 
tives, nor  reject  one  who  may  have  wronged  him;  a  candidate 
should  be  both  good  and  wise,  but  if  the  choice  lie  between  a 
wise  man  and  one  who  is  good  but  foolish,  the  interest  of  the 
state  requires  the  former;  no  man  should  be  elected  to  an  office 
by  way  of  charity;  his  poverty  must  not  be  relieved  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  public  service." 

These  are  the  thoughts  of  a  contemporary  of  Columbus.  They 
are  applicable  to  the  United  States  in  the  Twentieth  Century. 

The  result  of  the  earlier  movements  of  which  I  have  spoken, 
which  found  their  happy  culmination  at  the  time  our  American 
governments  were  established,  was  to  place  In  the  Bills  of  Rights 
of  our  various  States  and  the  first  ten  amendments  to  the  Federal 
Constitution  the  great  principles  of  religious  freedom,  political 
freedom.,  freedom  of  contract  and  the  right  of  private  property. 
To-day  the  great  questions  are  the  limitations  to  be  imposed  upon 
the  rights  of  personal  liberty,  of  freedom  of  contract,  and  of  pri- 
vate property.  No  one  questions  that  some  limitations  are 
proper.  Many  have  already  been  sustained  by  the  courts.  The 
great  danger  is  that  in  the  struggle  between  the  state  and  the  indi- 
vidual we  may  forget  the  lessons  of  individual  liberty,  dearly 
bought  as  they  were,  and  may  yield  too  much  to  the  strength  of 
combinations,  whether  of  labor  or  of  capital,  or  may  allow  the 
seeming  good  of  the  state  to  crush  the  Individual ;  the  danger  Is 
especially  great  In  a  democratic  form  of  government,  where  the 
majority  rule  and  possess  the  tremendous  influence  of  numbers. 
If  the  people  are  to  rule  righteously,  the  majority  must  possess 
the  qualities  of  great  rulers,  courage,  fortitude,  self-sacrifice,  loy- 
alty, patience,  persistence,  devotion  to  a  great  cause,  and  recogni- 
tion of  the  rights  of  all.     "  We  must  educate  our  rulers,"  said 


206 

Lord  Sherbrooke,  and  we  have  undertaken  the  task  on  a  tremend- 
ous scale.  But  education  in  itself  may  prove  a  bane  rather  than 
a  blessing  if  it  increases  our  wants  without  increasing  our  sense 
of  obligation  to  do  right.  The  great  work  to  be  done  by  reli- 
gious people  is  to  establish  and  insist  upon  the  fundamental  ethical 
basis  of  society,  and  to  work  out  a  proper  idea  of  justice  and  lib- 
erty for  all,  so  that  the  rich  may  be  protected  in  the  enjoyment 
of  their  property  from  envy  and  from  spoliation,  and  the  laborer 
may  be  protected  from  oppression  whether  of  his  employer  or  his 
fellows,  and  given  as  far  as  possible  an  opportunity  to  contract 
on  terms  of  equality,  without  infringing  the  rights  of  other  labor- 
ers. The  difficulties  are  immense.  The  task  is  to  determine  what 
is  fundamentally  right  not  only  for  the  advantage  of  the  present 
generation  but  for  human  society  in  the  long  run,  and  having  de- 
termined that  to  persuade  men  to  act  with  the  sense  of  responsi- 
bility properly  expected  from  sovereign  rulers,  and  not  with  a 
mere  view  to  the  material  well  being  of  the  present  moment. 

Disheartened  as  we  must  sometimes  be  at  the  slow  progress 
which  is  made,  and  at  the  corruption  which  undoubtedly  exists, 
we  need  not  lose  hope.  The  really  great  causes  have  more  than 
once  been  advanced  even  in  ages  of  the  greatest  corruption,  and 
by  men  whose  personal  characters  were  bad.  Most  of  us  would 
agree  with  Dr.  Johnson's  hostility  to  John  Wilkes,  and  yet  none 
of  us  would  be  inclined  to  deny  that  his  services  to  the  cause  of 
political  liberty  were  worthy  of  being  commemorated  in  the  name 
of  a  prosperous  city  of  this  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.  The 
age  which  in  England  preceded  the  American  Revolution  was  an 
age  of  the  greatest  corruption,  having  its  source  in  the  King  him- 
self, and  yet  it  was  an  age  of  great  progress  for  the  English  peo- 
ple, not  only  in  the  spread  of  English  power  but  in  the  rise  of  a 
more  wholesome  public  spirit.  None  of  us  can  forget  the  more 
recent  example  of  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  began  his  public  career 
with  the  defense  of  the  corruption  at  the  Liverpool  election,  and 
was  enabled  through  a  long  life  to  accomplish  more  for  good 
government,  certainly  than  any  other  Englishman  of  his  time. 
It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  cite  similar  instances  in  our  own  his- 
tory. Even  during  the  Civil  War,  when  men  were  actuated  by 
high  ideals  to  the  risk  and  sacrifice  of  life,  which  brought  about 


207 

the  abolition  of  slavery  and  the  establishment  of  the  Union,  cor- 
ruption was  rife;  but  the  spirit  of  the  people  was  sound.  But  a 
few  men  of  high  character,  devoted  to  a  noble  purpose,  cannot  of 
themselves  bring  about  or  preserve  a  wholesome  state  of  society. 
That  can  only  be  secured  where  the  general  average  sense  of 
public  duty  is  high.  This  is  the  task  which  religion  has  set  be- 
fore it ;  it  is  here  that  it  finds  its  best  connection  with  politics, 
and  it  is  in  the  possibility  of  the  prevalence  of  a  proper  ethical 
spirit  that  the  hope  of  a  noble  political  future  must  finally  rest. 
We  need  not,  of  course,  despair  in  view  of  the  past,  but  the  task 
is  the  task  of  each  individual,  and  if  success  is  to  be  secured,  it 
must  be  because  each  individual  realizes  that  the  well-being  of  his 
children's  children  depends  not  merely  upon  his  own  individual 
good,  but  the  general  good  of  all. 

RELIGION  AND  SOCIAL  SERVICE 

SUMMARY  OF  ADDRESS  BY  ALEXANDER  JOHNSON,  OF  FORT  WAYNE, 
INDIANA,  GENER.AL  SECRETARY  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONFERENCE 
OF   CHARITIES   AND   CORRECTION 

You  have  heard  two  or  more  definitions  of  the  word  Religion 
to-day.  While  we  are  of  one  mind  on  many  points,  yet  I  sup- 
pose it  would  be  impossible  to  frame  an  adequate  and  satisfactory 
definition  of  Religion  that  we  could,  every  one,  honestly  accept. 
At  the  least,  however,  religion  is  a  force  restraining  and  propul- 
sive. It  ties  us  back  from  evil;  it  impels  us  to  action  for  good. 
And  in  an  increasing  degree,  increasing  almost  everj'^where  and 
in  some  places  with  great  rapidity,  it  brings  us  to  the  tasks  of  So- 
cial Service  as  the  main,  if  not  the  only  means  of  satisfying  its  in- 
sistent call  to  action. 

The  propulsive  force  of  religion  leads  to  acts  of  justice  and 
mercy.  Micah  tells  us  so  in  his  definition  of  what  the  Lord  re- 
quires; James,  the  Apostle,  defines  pure  religion  in  similar  terms. 
But  may  we  also  claim  that  as  religion  demands  social  service  for 
its  satisfaction,  so,  social  service  needs  religion  for  its  sanction 
and  impelling  force?  It  seems  so  to  me.  I  know  of  no  worthy 
social  service  but  has  back  of  it  the  impelling  power  of  a  great, 
spiritual  conviction,   and   though  in  some  cases  the  workers  ex- 


208 

pressly  disclaim  religion  and  say  they  labor  purely  for  the  love 
of  men,  or  purely  to  gratify  an  inherent  desire  for  social  better- 
ment, yet  I  find  these,  like  Abou  Ben  Adhem,  among  the  most 
religious.  The  farmer's  wife  who  said  "  The  world's  a  pretty 
rough  place  for  lots  of  folk;  it's  not  going  to  be  rougher  because 
of  me,"  had  the  instinct  of  that  social  service  which  religion  in- 
spires. 

With  the  advancing  desire  for  service  has  come  advancing  so- 
cializing. Think  for  an  instant  of  that  most  common  form  of 
service,  the  friendly  help  of  the  unfortunate.  How  easy  this 
was  to  do  well  in  the  old  simple,  village  days,  how  impossible  to 
do  it  as  individuals  in  our  crowded  cities.  When  every  one  knew 
every  one  else  and  all  their  affairs,  when  the  need  came  every 
hand  was  open ;  when  the  need  ceased,  the  hands  closed.  Here, 
in  the  city,  we  hardly  know  the  names  of  neighbors  in  our  own 
street;  we  have  never  seen  the  dwellers  in  the  back  streets  and 
alleys.  To  help  them  we  must  socialize  our  efforts  and  create 
an  organized  force,  or  we  shall  surely  do  much  more  harm  than 
good. 

Still  more  necessary  is  socialized  effort  as  we  go  further  back 
than  present  suffering.  We  are  weary  of  perpetually  giving  re- 
lief which  has  only  a  temporary  effect,  and  creates  the  very  de- 
mand which  it  satisfies.  We  ask  ourselves  what  are  the  causes 
of  these  things;  how  can  we  remove  them,  and  we  find  the 
causes  that  at  first  seemed  chiefly  individual  are  really  further 
and  further  back,  that  they  are  largely  social  causes  and  can  only 
be  removed  by  social  efforts.  How  little  can  you  and  I  do  to 
remove  the  horrors  of  the  exploitation  of  childhood  by  greed  of 
gain  or  selfishness  of  parents.  I  may  resolve  that  my  child  shall 
not  labor  until  he  is  strong  enough.  I  may  inquire  as  to  which 
goods  have  been  made  under  such  evil  conditions  and  refuse  to 
buy  them.  But  such  scattering  efforts  would  have  an  infinitesi- 
mal effect.  We  must  join  together,  inspired  by  a  common  re- 
solve and  a  burning  enthusiasm  for  humanity,  to  redress  the 
wrongs  of  little  children.  Similarly  with  the  fight  against  pre- 
ventable disease,  that  greatest  of  all  causes  of  poverty.  With 
the  contest  against  the  slums,  the  infinite  source  of  woe  and  deg- 


209 

radation,  the  cause  of  more  vice,  misery,  desertion,  inefficiency 
than  any  other,  if  not  all  the  others,  what  can  you  and  I,  as  indi- 
viduals, do?  We  have  no  tenements  to  rent  at  20  per  cent, 
profit,  if  left  as  they  are,  or  5  per  cent,  profit  if  made  as  they 
should  be.  We  are  not  dodging  our  taxes,  which  if  honestly  paid 
and  honestly  used  would  abate  the  slums  and  give  the  poorest 
clean  streets,  good  sewerage,  pure  and  abundant  water  supply. 
For  all  these  and  many  other  social  causes  we  must  have  united 
Social   Service. 

I  have  said  Social  Service  requires  a  sanction  and  an  impera- 
tive that  can  only  come  from  a  great  spiritual  conviction,  some- 
thing worthy  of  the  high  name'  of  religion.  Can  we  find  such 
a  principle  of  action  which  we  may  all  apply  to  ourselves  ?  Rather 
does  such  a  principle  find  and  compel  us.  I  think  there  is  such 
a  one  and  that  it  unites  within  itself  the  highest  truth  of  science 
and  the  highest  verity  of  religion.  I  find  it  in  the  modern  theory 
of  the  Social  Organism,  a  theory  which  is  growing  in  importance 
and  in  acceptance,  which  is  proclaimed  alike  in  church  and  class 
room,  which  at  least  one  school  of  sociologists  claim  as  one  of 
the  fundamental  laws  of  their  science. 

What  is  this  Body  Politic  of  which  each  of  us  is  a  part?  Is  it 
merely  an  aggregation  of  units,  gathered  together  by  the  hope  of 
making  a  living,  or  a  fortune,  or  by  the  accident  of  birth? 
Or  is  it  merel}^  an  organization,  composed  of  multitudes  of 
parts  that  are  not  necessarily  related  to  each  other,  although  they 
act  and  react  on  one  another?  Neither  conception  seems  adequate. 
Societ}%  this  great  whole,  is  an  Organism,  one  living  being,  com- 
posed of  multitudinous  self-conscious  cells,  yet  every  one  related 
to  every  other  by  ties  that  cannot  be  sundered  without  pain  and 
loss.  St.  Paul  gave  us  the  theory  and  although  some  bodies  of 
religious  people  interpret  his  doctrine  "  Ye  are  all  members  of  one 
body  "  in  a  narrow  way,  making  it  apply  to  the  professed  mem- 
bers of  some  little  communion,  yet  that  is  not  the  true  interpre- 
tation. We  are  all  members  of  one  body.  The  heart  or  the 
head  or  the  hand  cannot  be  sick  of  itself;  the  whole  body  is  dis- 
eased. The  fever  from  a  wounded  limb  spreads  to  every  part. 
So  no  cell  in  the  great  social  organism  can  be  distressed  alone,  no 


2IO 

poor  lost  creature  can  be  sick  or  sorry,  wronged  or  wretched, 
sinful  or  abused,  but  you  and  I  to  some  extent  are  sick  or  sorry, 
wronged   or  wretched,   sinful   or   abused. 

Our  loved  and  lamented  leader  in  philanthropy  in  the  Middle 
West,  Oscar  McCullough,  used  to  say:  "When  any  little  child 
suffers  or  is  in  danger,  my  little  child  is  not  safe."  I  want  to 
go  a  step  further;  I  want  us  all  to  feel  that  "when  any  little 
child  suffers  or  is  wronged,  my  child  suffers  and  is  wronged. 
Every  little  child  is  my  child,  to  help,  to  protect,  to  love." 

It  is  this  thought,  this  passionate  claim  of  oneship  with  the 
social  being  that  makes  us  think  of  the  little  boy  picking  slate 
on  the  breakers,  or  sitting  in  the  dark  mine,  opening  and  shut- 
ting the  air  trap,  of  the  little  girl  in  the  cotton  mill,  weary  and 
sad,  of  the  poor  man  dying  of  tuberculosis  in  the  crowded  tene- 
ment, of  the  underpaid,  overworked  laborer,  of  "  the  motherless 
girl  whose  fingers  thin  push  from  her  faintly  want  and  sin,"  of 
the  mother  with  her  baby  tugging  at  her  empty  breast  as  she  sits 
at  the  machine  in  the  sw^eat  shop. 

Friends,  these  are  all  ours,  a  part  of  us.  It  is  because  we  re- 
alize this  truth  that  we  are  no  longer  content  to  live  on  our  beau- 
tiful, well-paved  avenues  and  leave  the  slums  to  rot.  We  don't 
so  much  want  fine  pictures  and  libraries  in  our  homes  as  we  want 
public  art  galleries  and  libraries  for  every  boy  and  girl.  We 
take  our  summer  holiday,  but  we  want  the  sick  babies  taken  by 
our  fresh  air  fund,  and  given  pure  milk  by  our  milk  commission. 

Is  this  not  a  Religious  Conviction,  this  theory  of  the  Social 
Organism?  Does  it  not  prove  itself  religious  by  calling  to  us, 
to  us  the  strong,  the  happy,  the  fortunate,  to  spend  and  be  spent 
in  the  service  of  the  less  fortunate,  our  brothers  and  sisters?  Is  it 
not  a  corollary,  rather  a  restatement,  of  the  belief  in  the  Brother- 
hood of  man,  which  eventually  leads  us  to  the  Fatherhood  of  God. 

Friends,  let  us  look  at  this  heavenly  vision  and  having  once 
seen  it,  be  like  St.  Paul,  never  more  unmindful  of  it.  Is  the  con- 
ception I  have  presented  to  you  not  worthy  to  be  called  the  Heav- 
enly Vision?  Gaze  upon  it  until  its  strength  and  beauty  fill 
your  souls  with  good  will  to  men.  Then  shall  there  be  peace 
on  earth  to  men  of  good  will. 


211 

This  is  my  plea  for  Religion  and  Social  Service  and  this  is  how 
I  would  define  each  in  terms  of  the  other. 

RELIGION  AND  MODERN  INDUSTRIALISM 

JOHN    MITCHELL,    LATE    PRESIDENT    UNITED    MINE    WORKERS 
OF    AMERICA 

The  subject  of  religion  and  modern  industrialism  suggests  a 
discussion  covering  a  wide  range  of  economic,  ethical,  and  moral 
thought.  I  take  it  for  granted,  however,  that  I  am  expected 
to  review  the  subject  from  the  standpoint  of  the  organized  work- 
men and  to  develop  the  theory  that  there  is  a  common  interest  be- 
tween religion  and  the  ethics  of  the  trade  union  movement.  Act- 
ing on  this  hypothesis,  I  wish,  at  the  outset,  to  lay  down  as  fun- 
damental the  claim  that  a  high  religious  and  moral  standard  is 
not  consistent  with  a  low  industrial  ideal.  The  man  who  comes 
mentally  and  physically  exhausted  from  ten  or  twelve  hours  of 
labor,  who  has  worked  in  a  badly  ventilated  mine  or  factory,  or 
whose  home  is  bare  and  cheerless  because  his  low  wages  will  not 
permit  improvement,  is  much  more  apt  than  his  fellow  who  has 
worked  eight  hours  amidst  healthful  surroundings,  to  seek  that 
stimulus  and  relaxation  which  is  detrimental  to  his  health  and 
his  morals.  And  in  so  far  as  the  labor  movement  contributes  to 
the  physical,  intellectual  and  moral  development  of  the  workman, 
it  is  going  hand  in  hand  with  the  church,  which  directs  its  ener- 
gies toward  the  moral  and  spiritual  uplift  of  the  people.  There 
can  be  no  fundamental  antagonism  between  religion  and  trade 
unionism.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  great  moral  lessons  taught 
by  the  founder  of  the  Christian  church  find  tangible  expression  in 
the  principles  and  practices  of  the  wisely  governed  modern  labor 
organization. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  regrettable  fact  that  large  numbers  of  work- 
ingmen  have  disconnected  themselves  from  the  churches.  This  ac- 
tion, however,  regrettable  as  it  may  be,  is  not  a  protest  against 
religion  itself  but  is  attributable  to  an  impression  that  there  is, 
on  the  part  of  many  of  our  churches,  an  absence  of  sympathy  with 
the  ideals  of  the  working  people  and  with  the  movement  through 


212 

which  they  are  striving  to  ameliorate  the  conditions  under  which 
men  live  and  work. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  criticise  the  church  because  some  of  its 
representatives  deride  and  denounce  the  ideals  of  the  working- 
men,  just  as  the  labor  unions  should  not  be  criticised  and  de- 
nounced because  of  the  occasional  intemperate  utterances  or  un- 
wise actions  of  some  of  their  leaders  and  adherents.  My  own 
observation  and  experience  have  satisfied  me  that  an  overw^helm- 
ing  majority  of  the  representatives  of  all  denominations  are  thor- 
oughly in  sympathy  with  the  struggles  of  the  workmen  to  secure 
higher  and  better  standards  of  life  and  labor.  But  I  am  going 
to  take  the  liberty  of  suggesting  that  in  carrying  forward  the 
command  of  the  Saviour  — "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature,"  it  would  be  of  immeasurable  ad- 
vantage both  to  the  church  and  to  the  industrial  forces  if  the 
workingmen  themselves  and  the  philosophy,  the  purpose,  and  the 
ideals  of  their  movement  were  better  understood. 

The  wage  earners  are  not  the  irrational,  irreligious,  and  de- 
structive factors  in  our  social  life  that  their  critics  and  opponents 
represent  them  to  be.  It  is  the  failure  to  appreciate  their  real 
character  and  the  philosophy  of  their  movement  that  has  given 
wide  circulation  to  erroneous  impressions  concerning  them. 

To  understand  this  philosophy,  the  ideals  and  the  purpose  of 
the  trade  union  movement,  it  is  necessary  that  we  keep  in  mind 
the  history  of  industrial  development;  that  we  have  a  clear  com- 
prehension of  the  complex  problems  that  characterise  modern  in- 
dustrial life;  that  we  realize  the  fact  that  the  purpose  of  the  trade 
union  movement  is  not  so  much  to  secure  the  advancement  of  the 
exceptional  workman  as  it  is  to  bring  about  the  general  and  grad- 
ual uplift  of  the  great  mass  of  the  wage  earners;  and  to  understand 
the  actions  of  the  organized  workmen  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
the  evils  which  the  trade  unions,  by  such  actions,  seek  to  eradi- 
cate. 

In  ancient  and  mediaeval  times  the  struggle  for  existence  cen- 
tered in  the  problem  of  production ;  the  question  of  distribution 
was  not  a  great  factor  in  determining  the  health  or  wealth  or 
happiness  of  the  human  race.  It  was  not  until  the  invention  of 
machinery  and  the  advent  of  the  factory  system,  it  was  not  until 


213 

society  was  organized,  as  it  is  to-day,  on  the  basis  of  a  minute  and 
complicated  division  of  labor  and  an  extended  change  and  inter- 
change of  commodities,  that  the  question  of  distribution  became  the 
problem  the  solution  of  which  has  taxed  the  ingenuity  of  the 
world's  economists  and  statesmen. 

No  one  can  understand  the  true  nature  of  trade  unionism  unless 
he  understands  the  industrial  revolution  and  what  it  accomplished. 
The  history  of  mankind  has  been  more  vitally  affected  by  changes 
in  its  machines  and  in  its  methods  of  doing  business  than  by  any 
action  or  council  of  statesmen  or  philosophers.  What  we  call 
the  modern  world,  with  its  huge  populations,  its  giant  cities,  its 
political  democracy,  its  growing  intensity  of  life,  its  contrasts  of 
wealth  and  poverty  —  this  great,  whirling,  restless  civilization 
with  all  its  vexing  problems  —  is  the  offspring  largely  of  changed 
conditions  of  producing  wealth. 

Trade  unionism  starts  from  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  under 
present  industrial  conditions  the  individual,  unorganized  work- 
man cannot  bargain  advantageously  with  the  employer  for  the 
sale  of  his  labor.  Since  the  workingman  has  no  money  in  reserve 
and  must  sell  his  labor  immediately;  since  he  has  no  knowledge 
of  the  market  and  no  skill  in  bargaining;  because  he  has  only  his 
own  labor  to  sell  while  the  employer  engages  hundreds  or  thous- 
ands of  men  and  can  easily  do  without  the  services  of  any  particu- 
lar individual,  the  workingman,  if  bargaining  on  his  own  account 
and  for  himself  alone,  is  at  a  very  great  disadvantage.  In  the 
individual  contract  between  a  powerful  employer  and  a  single 
workman  the  laborer  will  secure  the  worst  of  it ;  such  a  contract 
usually  means  that  the  condition  of  the  poorest  and  lowest  man  in 
the  industry  will  be  that  which  the  average  man  must  accept.  It 
was  to  find  a  substitute  for  the  individual  bargain,  which  mili- 
tates against  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  the  whole  working 
people,  that  trade  unions  were  formed. 

It  is  frequently  charged  against  the  union  that  in  policy  and 
practice  it  reduces  to  a  dead  level  all  the  men  employed  in  a 
given  trade;  that  the  most  efficient  and  the  most  ambitious  are  re- 
duced to  the  level  of  the  incompetent  and  the  sluggard.  This 
charge  is  a  libel  and  a  pretense.  The  trade  union  fixes  a  mini- 
mum, not  a  maximum  wage,  and  the  employer  is  at  perfect  liberty 


214 

to  reward  the  esp>€cially  efficient  or  ambitious  workman  by  paying 
him  higher  wages  than  are  fixed  by  the  union.  The  union  does 
object,  however,  to  one  workman  being  rewarded  by  an  employer 
when  the  reward  is  extracted  from  the  pay  envelope  of  another 
workman.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  employers  usually  fix  a  maxi- 
mum wage  at  the  same  point  at  which  the  union  fixes  the  mini- 
mum wage;  and  what  is  true  of  wages  is  also  true  of  hours  of 
labor  and  other  conditions  of  employment. 

In  the  course  of  an  address  delivered  before  the  National  Civic 
Federation,  Mr.  Taft,  then  President-elect,  stated;  "Time  was 
when  everybody  who  employed  labor  was  opposed  to  the  labor 
union ;  when  it  was  regarded  as  a  menace.  That  time,  I  am  glad 
to  say,  has  largely  passed  away,  and  the  man  to-day  who  objects 
to  the  organization  of  labor  should  be  relegated  to  the  last  cen- 
tur}\  It  has  done  marvels  for  labor  and  will  doubtless  do  more: 
it  will,  I  doubt  not,  avoid  the  reduction  to  a  dead  level  of  all 
workingmen." 

Trade  unionism  does  not  stand  for  paternalism  but  for  a  broad, 
all-inclusive  fraternalism ;  it  does  not  stand  for  the  "  loyalty  "  of 
the  workman  to  his  employer  but  for  a  fair,  reciprocal  contract 
between  these  two  parties.  It  does  not  stand  for  the  recognition 
of  a  difference  in  species  between  employer  and  workman  but  it 
insists  upon  the  substantial  equality  of  all  men  and  for  the  right 
of  the  workers  to  secure  all  they  can  consistent  with  trade  condi- 
tions. Finally,  it  does  not  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  employer 
who  in  giving  work  to  a  man  assumes  that  he  is  conferring  a  bene- 
fit upon  him,  any  more  than  it  stands  for  the  opposite  doctrine 
that  the  acceptance  of  work  confers  a  favor  upon  the  employer. 
The  ideal  of  trade  unionism  is  that  of  two  separate,  strong,  self- 
respecting  and  mutually  respecting  parties  freely  contracting  with 
each  other,  with  no  limitation  upon  the  right  of  perfect  and  ab- 
solute freedom  of  contract  save  that  w^hich  a  community,  in  its 
wisdom,  may  determine  to  be  necessary  for  its  own  protection. 

Through  his  trade  union  the  workingman  is  striving  to  secure: 

First:  A  minimum  wage  which  will  enable  men  and  women 
to  live  in  a  manner  conformable  to  American  standards,  to  edu- 
cate their  children,  and  to  make  adequate  provision  against  sick- 
ness and  old  age; 


215 

Second :  The  eight  hour  workday,  which  will  give  him  oppor- 
tunity for  the  cultivation  of  home  life,  the  enjoyment  of  books, 
music,  and  wisely  employed  leisure; 

Third:  Legislation  making  it  unlawful  for  children  of  tender 
years  and  frail  physique  to  be  employed  in  gainful  pursuits ; 

Fourth :  Laws  providing  for  the  safe-guarding  of  the  lives  and 
limbs  of  workers  engaged  in  dangerous  occupations  and  for  com- 
pensation for  loss  sustained  through  injuries  suffered  in  the  course 
of  employment ; 

Fifth:  The  progressive  improvement  of  the  sanitary,  working, 
and  housing  conditions  of  the  wage  earners;  and 

Sixth:  The  preservation  of  the  constitutional  guarantee  of  free 
speech,  a  free  press,  and  trial  by  jury. 

I  shall  not  consume  your  time  by  a  lengthy  discussion  of  the  ma- 
terial advancement  of  the  workingman  which  has  been  secured 
through  the  activities  of  the  trade  union,  although  this  very  ma- 
terial gain  has  been  a  contributing  factor  in  his  physical,  intel- 
lectual, and  moral  development. 

Those  who  look  only  at  the  surface  of  things  and  judge  trade 
unionism  by  an  occasional  glimpse  are  likely  to  fail  to  appreciate 
the  uplifting  influence  of  this  institution  upon  the  character  of  the 
wage  earner.  Many  who  admit  that  trade  unions  have  been  suc- 
cessful in  raising  wages,  shortening  hours,  and  improving  the  ma- 
terial conditions  of  the  worker's  life,  still  believe  that  their  effect 
upon  his  intellectual  and  moral  tone  has  been  either  bad  or  en- 
tirely negative.  To  all,  however,  who  do  not  view  these  matters 
superficially,  it  must  be  evident  that  trade  unionism  has  had  ex- 
actly the  opposite  effect.  Workmen  who  formerly  went  from 
their  twelve  hours  of  labor  to  the  nearest  saloon  now  spend  their 
time  with  their  families,  improving  their  minds  or  enjoying  a  sen- 
sible and  sane  recreation.  In  most  instances  increased  wages  and 
shorter  hours  have  meant  the  education  and  gratification  of  the 
intellectual  and  artistic  sense  of  the  workers ;  have  meant  books 
and  pictures;  have  meant  a  few  additional  rooms  in  the  house 
and  more  decent  surroundings  generally;  have  meant  a  few  years' 
extra  schooling  for  the  children ;  have  meant,  finally,  a  general 
uplifting  of  the  whole  working  class.  Trade  unionism  has  bene- 
fitted the  worker  by  the  emphasis  which  it  has  laid  upon  the  wel- 


2l6 

fare  of  the  workingman.  Too  often  the  employer  has  been  in- 
terested chiefly  in  the  amount  of  production ;  he  has  forgotten  the 
producer  in  the  goods  produced.  Trade  unionists,  on  the  other 
hand,  have  thrown  the  emphasis  not  on  the  goods  but  on  the 
man  by  whom  they  are  produced.  It  is  no  longer  the  machine 
but  the  man  at  the  machine  that  is  taking  "  the  center  of  the 
stage  "  in  economic  thought. 

The  trade  union  distinctly  raises  the  moral  tone  of  the  workers 
by  infusing  into  them  a  sense  of  the  dignity  of  labor.  There  is 
much  lip  service  paid  to  the  ennobling  effect  of  labor  and  to  the 
dignity  which  it  confers  upon  the  workman,  but  it  is  the  trade 
union  and  the  trade  union  alone  which  translates  these  mere  pro- 
fessions into  actual  deeds.  The  unionists  feel  that  it  is  not  the 
work  itself  but  the  spirit  in  which  the  work  is  accepted  and  per- 
formed that  ennobles  the  worker.  The  unionist  does  not  believe 
that  man  was  put  upon  this  earth  for  no  better  purpose  than  cease- 
lessly to  push  a  piece  of  wire  through  a  little  hole  or  endlessly  to 
repeat  the  same  simple,  uniform  operation.  He  believes,  on  the 
contrar}',  that  man  should  be  relieved  as  far  as  possible  from  work 
partaking  of  the  character  of  drudgerj-,  but  that  necessary  work 
should  be  performed  unhesitatingly,  uncomplainingly,  and  consci- 
entiously. 

If  trade  unionism  has  rendered  no  other  service  to  humanity, 
it  would  have  justified  its  existence  by  its  efforts  in  behalf  of 
working  women  and  children.  Unfortunately,  societj^  does  not 
seem  to  feel  itself  capable  of  conducting  its  industries  without  the 
aid  of  its  weaker  members.  With  each  advance  in  production, 
with  each  increase  in  wealth  and  the  capacit\'^  of  producing  wealth, 
women  and  children  in  ever  larger  numbers,  are  drawn  into  the 
industrial  vortex.  The  home,  the  natural  and  moral  sphere  of 
the  woman,  has  been  shattered  by  the  invasion  of  the  machine  and 
the  factory  system.  Through  constant  association  with  it  we 
have  become  hardened  to  the  degrading  and  humiliating  truth 
that  in  our  society,  as  at  present  constituted,  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands if  not  millions  of  women  and  girls,  depending  entirely  upon 
their  own  resources,  are  compelled  to  work  unduly  long  hours  and 
for  beggarly  wages.  The  trade  union  seeks  to  protect  the  woman 
morally,  physically,  and  industrially.     It  demands  that  she  shall 


217 

not  be  employed  amidst  surroundings  that  are  destructive  of  her 
moral  and  physical  health ;  it  demands  that  she  shall  not  be  em- 
ployed at  night  work  or  for  excessively  long  hours;  it  demands 
and  insists  that  women  shall  receive  equal  pay  with  men  for  equal 
work.  In  demanding  equal  pay  and  healthful  surroundings  for 
women,  the  union  not  only  protects  the  woman  and  the  home  but 
ft  protects,  also,  the  standard  of  living  of  all  wage  earners. 

Even  more  important  than  the  benefits  conferred  by  trade  un- 
ionism upon  women  workers  have  been  its  efforts  in  behalf  of  the 
toiling  children.  It  is  hard  to  reconcile  the  humanity  and 
vaunted  intelligence  of  this  era  with  the  wholesale  employment 
of  children  in  industry.  Childhood  should  be  a  period  of  growth 
and  education ;  it  should  be  the  stage  in  which  the  man  is  trained 
for  future  effort  and  future  work.  With  each  advance  in  civili- 
zation, with  each  improvement  of  mankind,  the  period  of  child- 
hood should  be  extended,  in  order  that  the  men  and  women  of 
the  next  generation  may  be  mature  and  developed.  In  the  fac- 
tory the  spring  of  the  child's  life  snaps  and  its  spirit  is  com- 
pletely broken.  The  outlook  upon  life  of  a  child  emerging  illit- 
erate and  listless  from  five  or  six  years  of  work  at  deadening  and 
monotonous  labor  is  not  at  all  encouraging,  and  it  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at  that  many  children  from  such  a  task  develop  into 
tramps  and  criminals. 

Apart  from  the  particular  and  special  evils  of  the  system  as  it 
exists  to-day,  the  policy  of  extracting  work  from  children  and 
exploiting  their  slow-growing  strength  is  vicious  and  self-destruc- 
tive. A  state  of  society  might  be  conceived  in  which  poverty 
was  so  general  that  even  the  little  children  would  needs  be 
drafted  into  the  industrial  army  in  order  to  produce  enough  to 
enable  society  to  eke  out  its  existence,  but  in  a  nation  which  has 
its  millionaires  —  almost  its  billionaires  —  in  a  society  in  which 
production  is  so  far  in  excess  of  consumption  that  thousands  of 
strong  men  can  find  no  work  to  do  and  in  which  we  are  building 
up  a  permanent  army  of  unemploj'ed,  it  but  emphasizes  the  evil  of 
a  system  which  permits  the  exploitation  and  degradation  of  chil- 
dren. 

It  seems  almost  an  absurdity,  a  reflection  upon  our  intelligence, 
that  women  and  children  are  compelled  to  work  while  strong  men 


2l8 

chafe  in  idleness.  Thousands  and  thousands  of  men  who  tramp 
about  the  country  and  live  off  society  instead  of  living  for  it  arc 
products  of  a  system  of  unregulated  child  labor. 

In  their  efforts  to  protect  the  woman  and  the  child  the  trade 
unions  have  been  assisted  by  the  best  men  and  women  from  every 
walk  of  life,  and  in  these  efforts  they  are  entitled  to  expect  and 
to  receive  the  active  support  of  the  church;  for  surely  there  can 
be  no  more  holy  and  righteous  duty  than  to  protect  and  preserve 
the  womanhood  and  the  childhood  of  the  nation. 

A  further  evil  of  modern  industrialism  which  cries  aloud  for 
correction  is  the  insecurity  of  the  worker's  hold  upon  existence. 
It  is  a  strange  commentary  upon  our  boasted  American  civiliza- 
tion that  more  men  are  killed  and  injured  in  industry  in  the 
United  States  than  in  any  other  country  in  the  world.  It  is  not 
my  purpose  to  decry  the  institutions  of  my  own  country,  because 
I  believe  that  with  all  our  failings,  with  all  our  sins  of  omission 
and  commission,  we  have  by  far  the  best  and  greatest  government 
ever  instituted  among  men ;  but  I  cannot  blind  myself  to  the  fact 
that  in  the  matter  of  providing  protection  for  the  life  and  the  safety 
of  the  workman  and  compensating  him  for  the  injuries  sustained 
in  the  course  of  his  employment,  we  are  lagging  far  behind  the 
nations  of  the  Old  World. 

In  a  letter  to  the  Exposition  of  Safety  Devices  and  Industrial 
Hygiene  held  under  the  auspices  of  the  American  Institute  of 
Social  Service,  Mr.  Roosevelt,  then  President,  expressed  thus  his 
views  upon  this  subject: 

"  As  modern  civilization  is  constantly  creating  artificial  dan- 
gers of  life,  limb,  and  health,  it  is  imperative  upon  us  to  provide 
new  safeguards  against  the  new  perils.  In  legislation  and  in  our 
use  of  safety  devices  for  the  protection  of  workmen  we  are  far 
behind  European  peoples,  and  in  consequence,  in  the  United 
States,  the  casualties  attendant  upon  peaceful  industries  exceed 
those  which  would  happen  under  great  perpetual  war.  Many, 
even  most,  of  these  casualties  are  preventable,  and  it  is  not  sui>- 
portable  that  we  should  continue  a  policy  under  which  life  and 
limb  are  sacrificed  because  it  is  supposed  to  be  cheaper  to  maim 
and  kill  men  than  to  protect  them." 

In  the  matter  of  the  health  and  safety  of  the  workman  society 


219 

has  not  yet  learned  its  full  lesson.  There  was  a  time  when  the 
criminal  law  was  a  matter  of  private  settlement  and  a  man  could 
relieve  himself  of  responsibility  for  the  murder  of  his  neighbor 
by  making  a  "  blood  payment  "  of  so  much  money  to  the  kinsmen 
of  the  murdered  man.  Our  attitude  toward  preventable  accidents 
is  still  much  the  same.  If  the  employer  pays  a  ludicrously  in- 
adequate sum  to  his  injured  employee  or  to  the  widow  of  a  work- 
man who  has  been  killed,  society  assumes  that  he  has  performed 
his  full  duty  and  that  his  concern  in  the  incident  has  ceased.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  many  large  emploj^ers  relieve  themselves  of  finan- 
cial responsibility  for  the  death  or  injury  of  their  workmen  by 
a  system  of  insurance  in  employers'  liability  companies.  In  con- 
sideration of  the  payment  of  a  small  fee  for  each  person  em- 
ployed, these  companies  guarantee  to  defend  in  the  courts  all 
suits  instituted  for  damages  and  to  pay  to  the  plaintiffs  in  such 
suits  any  judgment  which  may  be  rendered  against  the  employer. 
Because  of  this  protection  it  is  frequently  less  expensive  to  kill 
or  maim  a  workman  than  to  provide  adequate  safeguards  against 
his  injury. 

If  the  elimination  of  the  evils  that  have  grown  up  under  mod- 
ern industrialism,  and  the  consummation  of  the  purposes  and  ideals 
to  \Ahich  I  have  referred  would  make  for  the  physical,  intellectual, 
and  moral  uplift  of  the  workingman,  and  the  improvement  of 
society,  then  the  legitimate  means  by  which  they  are  achieved 
would  be  a  contributing  factor  in  his  advancement;  and  the 
church,  in  its  effort  to  broaden  and  enrich  the  moral  and  spiritual 
life  of  the  people  should  lend  its  voice  and  its  support  in  bring- 
ing to  full  fruition  these  high  purposes  and  lofty  ideals. 

I  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  the  literal  application  of  the 
Golden  Rule  would  do  more  to  establish  righteous  industrial  and 
social  relations  than  would  the  application  of  any  other  principle 
or  precept  that  could  be  conceived  by  the  human  mind. 

It  is  gratifying  to  note  instances  which  indicate  a  growing  in- 
terest in  the  labor  movement  on  the  part  of  the  representatives 
of  the  church.  Within  recent  years  some  of  the  great  religious 
organizations  have  established  departments  and  appointed  com- 
missioners to  study  the  needs  of  the  workingmen.  and  in  many 
of  our  large  cities  the  local  churches  have  selected  ministers  who 


220 

sit  as  fraternal  delegates  in  the  Central  Labor  Unions  and  in 
that  capacity  are  permitted  and  invited  to  discuss  the  problems 
of  labor.  By  such  action  a  closer  and  more  sympathetic  rela- 
tionship is  being  established  between  the  church  and  the  organi- 
zations of  labor.  This  development  argues  well  for  the  future. 
It  is,  according  to  some  authorities,  a  return  to  the  attitude  of 
reciprocal  interest  between  the  church  and  the  labor  movement 
which  existed  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  when,  it  is 
claimed,  the  apostles  were  actively  identified  with  the  ancient 
guilds  —  the  precursors,  in  some  measure,  of  the  modern  trade 
union. 

In  the  pursuit  of  its  ideals  trade  unionism  has  justified  its  ex- 
istence by  good  works  and  high  purposes.  At  one  time  viewed 
with  suspicion  by  workman  and  employer  alike,  it  has  gained 
the  affection  of  one  and  the  enlightened  esteem  of  the  other. 
Slowly  and  gradually  it  has  progressed  toward  the  fulfillment 
of  its  ideals.  It  has  elevated  the  standard  of  living  of  the  Ameri- 
can workman  and  secured  for  him  higher  wages  and  more  leisure; 
it  has  increased  efficiency,  diminished  accidents,  averted  disease, 
kept  the  children  at  school,  raised  the  moral  tone  of  the  factory, 
and  improved  the  relations  between  employer  and  employed.  In 
doing  so  it  has  stood  upon  the  broad  ground  of  justice  and  hu- 
manity. It  has  defended  the  weak  against  the  strong,  the  ex- 
ploited against  the  exploiter;  has  stood  for  efficiency  rather  than 
cheapness,  for  the  producer  rather  than  production;  for  the  man 
rather  than  the  dollar.  It  has  voiced  the  claims  of  the  unborn 
as  of  the  living,  and  has  sta^^ed  the  hand  of  that  ruthless,  near- 
sighted profit-seeking  which  would  destroy  future  generations 
as  men  wantonly  cut  down  forests.  It  has  aided  and  educated 
the  newly  arrived  immigrant,  protected  the  toil  of  women  and 
children,  and  fought  the  battles  of  the  poor  in  attic,  mine,  and 
sweatshop.  It  has  stood  for  self-respect,  for  decency,  and  for 
dignity;  it  has  stood  for  education,  for  religion,  and  for  morality. 
It  has  broken  down  the  religious  bigotries  and  racial  antagonisms 
which  in  former  times  arrayed  man  against  man,  group  against 
group,  and  nation  against  nation,  and  has  united  in  a  common 
bond  of  fellowship  the  men  and  women  from  every  quarter  of 
the  earth.     It  has  conferred   benefits,   made   sacrifices,   and,   un- 


221 

fortunately,  committed  errors.  I  do  not  conceal  from  myself  that 
trade  unionism  has  made  its  mistakes.  No  institution  fully  at- 
tains its  ideal,  and  men  stumble  and  fall  in  their  upward  striving. 

Said  that  great,  humane  philosopher,  Thomas  Carlyle:  "This 
that  they  call  the  organization  of  labour  is  the  universal  vital 
problem  of  the  world." 

I  feel  that  it  is  entirely  within  the  range  of  possibility  that  in 
the  not  distant  future  the  church  will  become  so  thoroughly  in 
sympathy  with  the  ideals  and  the  philosophy  of  trade  unionism 
that  its  ministers  will  be  proud  to  defend  and  advocate  the  cause 
and  the  principles  of  the  labor  union. 


222 


Fifth  Topic  of  the  Coxcress, 

"  RELIGION  AND  CURRENT  REFORMS." 

THE    DUTY   OF   RELIGIOUS   LIBERALS   TOWARDS 
THE  PEACE  MOVEMENT 

DR.    WILLIAM    I.    HULL,    OF    SWARTHMORE    COLLEGE,    PENN. 

In  the  olden  days  of  chivalry,  a  noble  family  took  for  its  device 
the  simple  words.  Noblesse  oblige.  In  our  English  tongue  we 
interpret  this  to  mean  that  noble  birth  or  rank  compels  to  noble 
deeds.  So  full  of  high  incentive  was  this  pithy  motto,  that  it 
became  the  watch-word  of  noble  men  and  women  in  every  land. 
I  would  fain  apply  it  to-day  to  this  Federation  of  Religious  Lib- 
erals, in  regard  to  the  Peace  Movement  of  our  time. 

For  if  Religion  be  "  the  doing  of  the  Word,  and  not  the  hearing 
of  it  only,"  and  if  the  Liberal  be  "  he  who  looketh  into  the  perfect 
law,  the  law  of  liberty,  and  so  continueth,"  then  are  Religious 
Liberals  doubly  dedicated  to  the  service  of  the  Peace  Movement 
which  has  arisen  so  gloriously  with  the  advent  of  this  Twentieth 
Century. 

During  centuries  of  human  history,  inhuman  and  incessant 
warfare  laid  its  devastating  hand  upon  human  lives  and  upon  the 
fruits  of  human  toil,  playing  that  role  in  the  history  of  the  world 
which  appalling  earthquakes  play  in  the  history  of  the  earth. 
But  wars  have  become  less  frequent  in  our  later  centuries,  and 
those  which  have  occurred  may  be  likened  to  the  recurring  but 
subsiding  tremors  of  some  great  natural  convulsion.  Fortu- 
nately for  mankind,  wars  are  unlike  earthquakes  in  that  they 
may  be  prevented.  It  seems  inevitable  that  men  must  look  for- 
ward with  what  equanimity  they  may  to  the  destruction  of  San 
Franciscos  or  Messinas  in  the  future ;  but,  thank  God,  the  human 
earthquake  of  warfare  can  and  shall  be  prevented.  And  in  this 
holy  warfare  against  war,  Religious  Liberals  have  a  plain  duty 
to  perform. 

When   the  mediaeval  Church  placed  itself  at  the  head  of  the 


223 

Crusades,  a  cry  went  up  from  Christendom,  "  To  Jerusalem,  to 
Jerusalem!  God  wills  it!"  The  enlightened  consciences  of 
men  in  our  day  have  recognized  this  old  battlecry  to  have  been 
no  whit  less  foolish  and  pernicious  than  all  the  others  uttered  in 
the  names  of  the  various  gods  of  battle.  But  with  the  passing 
of  this  and  of  many  another  wild  and  wicked  illusion,  the  faith 
of  men  still  remains  strong  that  there  is  a  genuine  holy  warfare 
to  be  waged  on  earth  in  which  they  in  their  religious  capacity  — 
their  churches  militant  —  must  enlist.  As  standard-bearers  on 
such  fields  of  battle,  the  world  has  a  right  to  look  to  Religious 
Liberals;  and  as  standard-bearers  in  the  great  Peace  Movement 
of  our  day,  these  must  perform  a  two-fold  task. 

I  have  compared  the  warfare  of  our  time  to  the  subsiding 
tremors  of  the  military  earthquakes  which  harassed  the  mediaeval 
world ;  they  are,  properly  speaking,  reversions  to  the  savagery  of 
primitive  man,  or  evidences  of  the  social  atavism  which  is  not 
yet  stamped  out.  Religious  Liberals  must  see  to  it,  in  the  first 
place,  then,  that  this  atavism  is  stamped  out. 

Again,  men  groping  slowly  through  centuries  of  muddied  and 
sluggish  thinking  in  regard  to  international  relations  have  caught 
a  vision  of  the  light  of  truth  and  have  begun  to  devise  and  estab- 
lish means  for  settling  their  differences  in  a  rational  and  peaceful 
way.  Religious  Liberals  must  see  to  it,  then,  in  the  second  place, 
that  this  light  of  truth  shall  shine  ever  more  bright  and  brighter 
and  that  it  shall  speedily  prevail  over  the  ignorance  and  sin 
which  have  darkened  international  dealings  in  the  past. 

Let  us  examine  a  little  more  closely  this  two-fold  task.  In 
their  struggle  against  reversion  to  savagery.  Religious  Liberals 
must  insist  that  men  shall  deal  honestly  with  their  intellects  and 
consciences,  and  interpret  the  great  Mosaic  injunction,  Thou  shalt 
not  kill,  to  mean  uncompromisingly  and  inevasively  that  men 
nfiust  not  take  the  lives  of  their  fellow  men  under  any  pretext 
whatsoever.  Besides  that  natural  instinct  of  the  brutes  which 
forbids  them  to  seek  by  organized  means  to  kill  their  own  kind, 
there  must  be  sounded  in  the  hearts  of  men  the  solemn  and  in- 
sistent command  of  reason  and  morality:  Thou,  individually  or 
collectively,  shalt  not  kill  thy  kind.  The  torch  which  shone 
from  Sinai's  mount  so  many  centuries  ago  must  be  kept  steadily 


224 

burning  and  flashed  from  land  to  land  and  from  soul  to  soul,  if 
civilization  is  to  be  kept  from  the  abyss  of  savagery  out  of  which 
it  has  so  painfully  climbed.  Be  it  the  task  of  Religious  Liberals 
to  prevent  that  torch  from  becoming  dimmed  by  the  sophistry 
vi'hich  denies  that  killing  is  murder  provided  it  be  done  on  a 
large  enough  scale  and  by  organized,  state-sanctioned  means.  Be 
it  the  task  of  Religious  Liberals  to  prevent  that  torch  from  be- 
coming quenched  in  the  casuistry  which  pretends  that  the  killing 
of  men  is  justifiable  because  of  the  end  which  is  sought.  Let 
Religion  reject  the  so-called  justice  which  is  pedestaled  upon  the 
physical  and  moral  victims  of  warfare.  Let  Liberals,  convinced 
that  even  "  to  further  Heaven's  ends  they  dare  not  break 
Heaven's  laws,"  deny  the  name  of  Liberty  to  that  license  which 
destroys  human  lives  and  causes  untold  human  misery,  even 
though  material  prosperity  or  even  moral  progress  may  follow 
in  its  train.  Let  them  say  to  governments  whose  function  it  is 
to  administer  law,  ye  shall  not  divest  yourselves  of  law  beyond 
the  territorial  limits  of  your  states  and  resort  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  your  purposes  to  violence  and  force.  Let  them  say  to 
the  nations  who  demand  great  armies,  They  that  take  the  sword 
shall  perish  by  the  sword.  Let  them  say  to  the  peoples  who  de- 
mand great  and  ever  growing  navies,  pleading  that  their  warlike 
preparations  are  inspired  solely  by  a  love  of  peace:  Ye  cannot 
serve  both  the  God  of  Warfare  and  the  Prince  of  Peace;  for 
either  you  will  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other,  or  else  you  will 
hold  to  the  one  and  despise  the  other.  Let  them  say  to  the  false 
prophets  who  teach  that  if  men  desire  peace  they  must  prepare  for 
war:  Ye  cannot  gather  figs  from  thorns  nor  grapes  from  thistles; 
and  if  ye  sow  the  wind,  ye  shall  reap  the  whirlwind. 

Above  all,  in  this  path  of  their  duty.  Religious  Liberals  must 
see  to  it  that  their  churches  are  cleansed  of  the  abominations  of 
the  dogs  of  war.  There  must  be  no  Christianized  Woden  or 
Judaized  Moloch  in  the  sanctum  sanctorum  of  church  or  tem- 
ple. There  must  be  no  service  of  song  or  prayer  or  penance 
designed  to  procure  from  the  Father  of  All  Mankind  a  victory 
on  the  field  of  battle  for  some  of  His  children  and  death  and  de- 
feat for  others  of  them.  No  minister  of  God  who  professes  to 
be   about  his  Father's  business,  must  bless  the  martial  banners 


225 

of  opposing  hosts,  or  send  out  Cains  from  God's  holy  altars  to 
slay  their  brother  Abels.  The  missionaries  whom  they  send  to 
foreign  lands  must  be  taught  that  it  is  not  to  their  country's  war- 
ships cruising  off  the  heathen's  coast  that  they  must  look  for  their 
strength  and  their  protection.  The  heathen  who  are  sought 
to  be  converted  to  a  better  mode  of  life  must  not  receive  a  Bible 
from  one  hand  and  the  menace  of  a  sword  from  the  other.  To 
Religious  Liberals,  if  to  any  one  on  God's  earth,  should  be  con- 
fidently entrusted  the  duty  of  putting  an  end  forever  to  the  last 
vestiges  of  that  old  method  of  conversion  illustrated  by  Charles 
the  Great  when  he  drove  the  Saxon  heathens  by  the  thousands,  at 
the  edge  of  the  sword,  into  the  baptismal  waters.  By  Religious 
Liberals,  if  by  any  one,  must  the  missionar}'-  enterprise  of  the 
future  be  inspired  solely  by  the  fearlessness  of  bodily  death,  by 
the  forgiveness  of  persecutors  ("not  knowing  what  they  do"), 
and  by  the  entire  rejection  of  any  aid  dependent  upon  the  threat 
or  the   reality  of  physical   force. 

There  was  a  time,  very  recent  in  our  country's  history,  when 
sections  of  the  church  defended,  condoned,  or  bewailed  the  ne- 
cessity of,  the  institution  of  human  slavery.  To-day,  there  are 
sections  of  the  church  which  defend,  condone,  or  bewail  the  ne- 
cessity of,  human  warfare.  The  call  has  come  clear  and  clearer 
to  Religious  Liberals,  in  whatever  section  of  the  church  they 
may  worship,  to  denounce  uncompromisingly  the  institution  of 
human  warfare;  to  brush  aside  the  shams  and  sophistries  which 
seek  to  hide  in  flaunting  or  flimsy  phrase  the  whole  dark  butchery 
of  war;  and  to  bid  men  divest  their  souls  of  fancied  fears  which 
make  them  hug  the  iron  chains  of  warlike  preparations.  It  is 
one  high  mission  of  Religion  to  lead  men  to  face  with  confi- 
dence serene  that  Valley  of  the  Shadow  of  Death  into  which 
every  mortal  must  some  time  pass ;  let  it  be  the  Religious  Liberals* 
task  to  bid  the  nations  pursue  their  paths  through  life  serene  and 
calm,  refusing  to  be  terrorized  by  fear  of  the  subjunctive;  refusing 
to  replace  the  rational  and  manly  motto  of  Dread  Nothing  by 
the  hysterical  one  of  Dreadnoughts,  which  means  in  reality  Dread 
Everything;  refusing  to  die  a  thousand  deaths  in  fearing  one;  re- 
fusing to  create  an  atmosphere  of  suspicion  towards  this  or  that 
other  nation;  refusing  to  forge  for  themselves  the  chains  of  their 


226 

own  slavery ;  refusing  to  place  a  burden  on  their  backs  which 
shall  bow  them  to  the  earth  and  shut  out  from  their  vision  not 
only  the  truth  of  heaven  but  also  the  truth  about  their  fellow 
men. 

Let  it  be  the  Religious  Liberals'  second  duty  as  standard 
bearers  in  the  Cause  of  Peace,  to  lead  men's  minds  away  from 
warlike,  brutal  and  foolish  means  of  settling  international  dis- 
putes, and  towards  the  discovery  and  adoption  of  peaceful,  ra- 
tional and  Twentieth  Century  means.  Throughout  the  gloom 
of  centuries  of  warfare,  the  advocates  of  peace  have  toiled  faith- 
fully but  too  often  half-despairingly  onward  towards  some  far 
off  imagined  day  when  law  should  take  the  place  of  violence  in 
international  affairs,  and  heroic  souls  have  cheered  each  other 
by  the  cry,  "There  must  be  refuge!  What  good  gift  have  our 
brothers,  but  it  came  through  toil  and  strife  and  loving  sacri- 
fice?" To  our  eyes,  in  the  dawn  of  this  Twentieth  Century, 
has  come  the  clear  vision  of  that  refuge.  We  have  seen  the 
nations  twice  assembled  in  conference  at  The  Hague;  w^e  have 
seen  them  acknowledging  in  word  and  deed  the  fact  that  they  are 
one  single  family,  each  member  possessing  inalienable  rights  and 
bounden  duties;  we  have  seen  them  adopting  great  codes  of  law 
which  shall  throw  the  mantle  of  scientific  aid  and  of  human 
charity  over  the  brutalities  of  war,  and  shall  restrict  the  devasta- 
tions of  warfare  on  land  and  sea  to  narrow  channels,  protecting 
from  its  havoc,  as  far  as  may  be,  the  great  world  of  peaceful 
industry  and  progress.  We  have  seen  the  corner-stone  laid  at 
The  Hague  of  a  beautiful  Palace  of  Peace,  which  is  to  afford 
a  home  to  institutions  for  the  peaceful  settlement  of  international 
disputes,  which  have  already  been  put  into  beneficent  activity; 
for  here  will  be  housed  the  international  commissions  of  inquiry, 
the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration,  with  its  arbitral  tribunals, 
Permanent  Bureau  and  Administrative  Council,  the  Interna- 
tional Prize  Court  and  the  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice, —  all  of 
which  have  been  adopted  or  provided  for  by  the  two  Hague  Con- 
ferences, and  some  of  which  have  already  been  put  into  benefi- 
cent activity. 

Laying  up  all  these   things  in   our  hearts,   remembering  them 
faithfully  and  hopefully,   and  praying  God  to  be  with  us  still. 


227 

lest  we  forget  them,  let  it  be  our  high  privilege  and  bounden 
duty  as  Religious  Liberals  to  emphasize  in  the  midst  of  war's 
alarums  the  great  fact  that  there  are  available  and  mandatory 
these  peaceful  and  honorable  means  both  of  settling  quarrels  and 
of  procuring  justice;  let  us  exalt  these  means  above  warfare  or 
preparations  for  warfare,  as  high  as  light  is  above  darkness,  as 
heaven  is  above  hell;  let  our  voices  in  clarion  tones  ring  out 
above  the  fears  and  clamor  of  the  thoughtless  or  the  ambitious 
the  insistent  cry,  "To  The  Hague,  To  The  Hague!  God  wills 
it!  "  Let  them  suffer  no  sophistries  as  to  righteousness  and 
honor  being  preferable  to  peace;  but,  backed  by  God's  word  and 
human  experience,  let  them  proclaim  that  peace  is  righteousness, 
that  peace  and  honor  are  now  and  forever  one  and  inseparable. 

THE    DUTY   OF   RELIGIOUS    LIBERALS   TOWARDS 
MARRIAGE  AND  DIVORCE 

MRS.  ANNA  GARLIN   SPENCER,  OF   NEW  YORK 

The  title  indicates  that  the  approach  of  religious  liberals  to  the 
problems  of  marriage  and  divorce  may  be  distinctive ;  in  some 
respects  unlike  the  approach  of  religious  persons  not  "  liberal." 
The  term  liberal  is  indefinitely  suggestive  of  an  attitude  of  mind 
freed  from  bondage  to  tradition  and  open  to  acceptance  of  logical 
inference  from  ascertained  facts:  and  it  is  becoming  associated 
with  a  tendency  toward  that  scientific  inquiry  and  that  fearless  use 
of  the  material  of  knowledge  in  the  area  of  human  experience, 
which  is  called  radical."  Hence,  altho  all  "  liberals "  may 
not  be  radical  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  word,  liberality  of  mind 
and  of  temperament  lead  easily  toward  acceptance  of  the  radical 
method  in  the  solutions  of  problems  philosophical,  social  or  per- 
sonal. The  term  "  religious  "  has  but  one  root  meaning  that  of 
loyalty  to  the  sanctities  of  life ;  of  reverent  regard  for  those  inner 
ties  which  bind  the  spirit  of  man  to  its  ideals,  however  those  ideals 
may  be  defined.  Therefore  religious  liberals  may  be  assumed  to 
hold  the  spiritual  interests  of  the  family  paramount  to  all  merely 
superficial  considerations  of  personal  wish  or  social  convenience, 
however  they  may  emancipate  themselves  from  the  letter  of  an- 
cient laws  and  custom. 


228 

What  then  is  the  consistent  ethical  and  helpful  attitude  of 
religious  liberals  toward  the  problems  of  marriage  and  divorce? 

The  serious  student  of  "  the  social  mechanism  which  constitutes 
the  social  order  "  must  approach  problems  of  life  and  conduct  in 
the  modern  world  in  the  spirit  of  scientific  inquiry  and  with  avoid- 
ance of  dogmatic  theorizing,  depending  for  solution  of  the  most 
difficult  of  those  problems  upon  the  testimony  of  human  experience 
as  that  is  interpreted  by  trained  intelligence  and  disciplined  judg- 
ment. It  is  in  that  spirit  that  the  problems  of  marriage  and 
divorce  are  approached  in  this  paper,  and  certain  basic  considera- 
tions are  summarized  at  the  outset  as  follows: 

First,  Marriage  is  a  social  institution,  with  a  natural  history  of 
development,  to  be  studied,  therefore,  as  all  other  social  institu- 
tions should  be  studied,  for  actual  testimony  of  human  experience 
concerning  what  may  be  decided  upon  as  right,  wise  and  socially 
desirable  under  present  conditions.  "  Marriage,"  says  Wester- 
marck:  "is  a  product  of  social  experience."  It  has  assumed  one 
form  or  another  as  varying  social  needs  have  seemed  to  demand; 
it  has  been  changed  from  one  form  to  another  as  other  social 
changes  have  seemed  to  require. 

Second,  it  is  generally  conceded  that  the  family  is  the  most  vital 
and  fundamental  institution  in  society.  It  is,  as  Dr.  Small  well 
sajT^s,  "  the  agency  by  which  the  individual  is  socialized,"  the  inner- 
most social  group  by  means  of  which  individuals  learn  how  to  live 
together  in  a  social  world.  It  is  the  focal  center  of  those  elements 
of  constancy  and  of  progress  in  human  experience  the  action  and 
interaction  of  which  secure  the  spiritual  evolution  of  the  race. 

Third,  the  family  in  some  form  is  now  accepted  as  the  primitive 
social  group,  the  nursery  and  kindergarten  of  the  race  in  its  dis- 
cipline toward  cooperative  action.  We  must  remember  in  this 
connection  that,  as  Staarcke  says:  "Marriage  is  rooted  in  the 
famil}-,  not  the  family  in  marriage."  That  is  to  say,  the  human 
race  did  not  first  build  up  the  union  of  the  sexes  upon  an  increas- 
ingly higher  plane,  and  then,  as  a  secondary  process,  build  up  the 
family  group  of  parents,  children,  brothers,  sisters,  grandparents, 
etc. ;  on  the  contrary,  humanity  developed  the  family  group  as  its 
first  attempt  at  social  order,  and  then  fixed  its  ideals,  customs  and 
laws  of  marriage  according  to  the  varying  requirements  of  family 
life. 


229 

Fourth,  the  union  of  the  sexes  and  the  initial  family  tendencies 
have  a  biological  as  well  as  a  sociological  background,  proving  that 
nature  has  ordained  their  strength  by  the  depth  of  their  founda- 
tion in  the  life-processes.  "  Marriage,"  says  Howard,  "  does  not 
belong  exclusively  to  our  species."  We  reach  in  beasts  and  in 
birds  conjugal  affection  of  a  high  order,  and  also,  in  some  degree, 
that  perpetuation  of  the  conjugal  relation  for  the  benefit  of  off- 
spring which  is  the  most  substantial  and  enduring  bond  of  the 
human  family. 

Fifth,  we  now  see  that  the  development  of  the  family  has  not 
been  in  straight  lines  of  evolutionary  sequence,  each  culture-stage 
exactly  corresponding  in  its  domestic  relationships  to  an  appro- 
priate general  social  order.  Varying  pressure  of  economic,  polit- 
ical, religious  and  social  influences  have  produced  variations  and 
reactionary  conditions  in  marriage,  child-care  and  other  domestic 
concerns.  This  makes  a  special  study  of  the  institution  of  the 
family,  apart  from,  while  connected  with,  all  other  social  institu- 
tions, necessary  to  a  clear  understanding  of  the  historic  back- 
ground for  modern  analysis.  In  general  however,  we  find  "  the 
horde  or  mother-right  "  the  chief  if  not  the  universal  primitive 
form  of  the  family.  As  Lippert  says:  "  The  mother  and  child  were 
the  simplest  elements  of  the  oldest  organization  of  society."  It  is 
to  be  noted,  however,  that  what  has  been  called  the  "  Matri- 
archate  "  is  not  the  feminine  parallel  of  the  "  Patriarchate."  The 
mother-right  was  not  that  of  a  personal  despot  like  the  Roman 
father;  the  mother-right  was  social,  a  definite  expression  of  tribal 
unity  through  blood  relationship,  as  expressed  in  the  vast  and 
widely  diffused  system  of  the  "  totem."  No  doubt  the  simple,  ob- 
vious bond  of  blood  first  "  set  the  mold  "  of  family  allegiance. 
The  more  abstract  conception  of  relationship  which  founded  the 
patriarchal  family,  that  w'hich,  as  ^schylus  makes  Apollo  say,  "  es- 
tablished the  male  as  the  generative  source  of  offspring,"  led  to  the 
headship  of  the  chief  father  over  the  collective  family  group  and 
paved  the  way  for  an  imperial  state  of  masculine  rule.  The  later 
ideal  conception  of  dual  parenthood,  with  reciprocal  rights  and  ob- 
ligations between  the  married  pair,  and  of  both  in  respect  to  their 
common  children,  has  been  long  struggling,  under  different  types 
of  the  family  order,  for  a  more  intelligent  and  complete  recognition. 


230 

Accepting  these  general  outlines  of  past  development,  we  see 
clearly  that  we  are  to-day  inheritors  of  all  the  ideals,  customs  and 
laws  which  have  outlined  the  experience  of  the  race  in  respect  to 
family  life.  We  find  imbedded  in  our  modern  laws  traces  of  the 
most  ancient  sanctions  and  prohibitions  concerning  marriage, 
divorce  and  the  care  of  children.  We  find  in  the  persisting  stat- 
utes defining  "  lines  of  consanguinity  "  and  of  "  racial  intermin- 
gling "  beyond  which  no  man  or  woman  can  go  in  contracting 
legal  marriage,  the  residuum  of  the  "  totem  "  and  other  prescrip- 
tions so  early  established  by  rigid  custom.  We  find  in  the  male 
headship  of  the  family  (so  strongly  intrenched  in  law  that  in  less 
than  twenty  of  the  commonwealths  of  the  United  States  is  a 
mother's  equal  control  of  the  children  even  now  assured)  a  clear 
repetition  of  the  patriarchal  ideals  of  the  family  which  for  so  long 
placed  not  only  the  children  but  the  wife  under  the  absolute  power 
of  the  father. 

Again,  we  have  in  connection  with  our  marriage  services,  lay  and 
clerical,  remnants  of  "  wife  sale,"  a  custom  nearly  universal  in 
some  culture-stages  of  the  race.  "  Who  giveth  this  woman  to 
wife  "  and  "  With  all  my  wordly  goods  I  thee  endow  "  echo  the 
changes  from  the  payment  of  money  for  the  bride  from  the  groom 
to  the  father,  to  the  payment  by  the  groom  to  the  bride  of  a 
sum  Vv'hich,  although  he  could  use  its  income  freely,  he  must  pre- 
serve in  principal  as  a  "  dower  "  (a  species  of  widow  and  old-age 
insurance),  and  which,  when  divorce  began  to  be  allowed  the 
wife,  might  be  ordered  returned  to  her  by  the  court  as  a  protection 
against  poverty.  In  other  portions  of  modern  marriage  services 
we  find  traces  of  the  opposite  stage  in  marriage  custom  —  that  in 
which  the  bridegroom  was  paid  for  marrying  the  woman  instead 
of  paying  for  the  privilege,  the  "  marriage  portions  "  settled  upon 
American  girls  who  marry  foreign  noblemen  being  a  picturesque 
example  of  this  survival. 

In  many  forms  of  marriage  service  in  our  modern  composite 
society  we  have  a  clear  and  definite  survival  of  the  Roman  patri- 
cian ideal  of  marriage  as  a  sacrament  of  religion,  in  which  the  sole 
basis  of  descent  of  name  and  property  and  sole  symbol  of  family 
autonomy,  is  an  indissoluble  bond  of  wedded  allegiance.  Latin 
Christianity,   which   preserved   this  patrician   ideal  of  indissoluble 


231 

marriage  and  reconsecrated  it  in  the  name  of  the  Christian 
church,  now  upholds  it  as  the  only  true  ideal  for  its  obedient  fol- 
lowers. We  have,  on  the  other  hand,  many  reminders  at  the  pres- 
ent day  of  that  opposite  type  of  marriage  ideal  and  ceremony,  that 
which  was  "  bred  in  the  bone  "  of  all  peoples  of  Teutonic  stock; 
namely,  the  ideal  of  marriage  as  a  "  private  contract,"  a  purely 
"  family  concern."  This  Germanic  ideal  expressed  itself  in  two 
rituals;  the  first,  the  legal  contract  which  alone  gave  validity  to 
the  union,  the  "  Be-wedding,"  or  betrothal,  in  which  the  father 
or  guardian  or  several  kinsmen  of  the  bride  safeguarded  her  inter- 
ests financially  and  otherwise,  especially  when  the  groom  was  to 
take  her  "  into  another  Thane's  land  "  ;  and  the  second,  the 
"  Gifta,"  or  nuptials,  in  which  the  ritual  expressed  the  more 
spiritual  element  of  the  union.  When  in  Germanic  civilization 
the  daughter  acquired  a  veto  power  respecting  her  father's  choice 
of  her  husband,  and  later  even  a  chance  for  self-choice,  the  senti- 
ments of  the  "  Gifta "  expressed  this  change,  and  the  ritual 
could  be  led  by  either  the  father,  a  chosen  guardian  or  an 
"  orator  "  selected  for  his  ability  to  lead  the  responses  with  distinc- 
tion ;  but  in  any  case  the  important  words  must  be  said  by  the  man 
and  woman  concerned  most  vitally  in  the  transaction,  and  by  both 
in  exactly  the  same  formula.  The  responses  of  the  English 
church  service,  the  simple  formula  of  the  Friends  and  many  other 
elements  of  modern  marriage  forms  are  reminders  of  the  old 
Teutonic  "  Be-wedding  "  and  "  Gifta  '"  now  consolidated  into  one 
ritual. 

The  childishly  romantic  "  elopements  "  of  the  present  day  hark 
back  still  further  in  primitive  instinct  to  the  ages  of  wife-capture 
or  to  the  "  rescue  of  the  fairy  princess  "  of  the  days  of  chivalry, 
and  are  evidences  of  an  ever-recurring  revolt  against  the  ideal  of 
social  obligation  in  marriage  which,  under  every  form  of  social 
order,  has  appeared  as  the  expression  of  an  extreme  individualism. 

Rooted  deeply  in  our  religious  inheritance  is  the  noble  Jewish 
ideal  of  marriage  as  a  holy  estate,  to  be  honored  above  all  other 
forms  of  human  relationship.  This  ideal  has  survived  the  attacks 
of  the  asceticism  of  early  Christianity  and  emerged  without  a  per- 
manent smirch  from  the  era  in  which,  as  one  of  the  fathers  of  the 
church  said :     "  All  those  are  urged  to  marry,  and  those  alone. 


232 

who  are  unable  to  bear  the  superior  state  of  virginity  and  are  not 
restrained  therefrom  by  solemn  vows." 

We  have  clear  evidence  of  the  antiquity  of  state  control  over 
marriage  in  the  requirement,  almost  universal  in  modern  society, 
to  secure  a  "  license  to  wed  "  and  the  issuance  of  a  certificate 
referring  to  the  legal  quality  of  the  act  of  marriage.  We  have 
not  kept  the  clear,  simple  and  positive  affirmation  of  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  state  in  domestic  concerns  which  was  established  by 
early  forms  of  Protestant  Christian  civilization;  and  we  have  not 
yet  achieved  in  a  uniform  marriage  law  anything  so  progressive 
and  socially  unifying  as  that  which  the  genius  of  Cromwell  gave 
to  the  brief  reign  of  the  English  Commonwealth.  The  early 
settlers  of  America,  however,  preserved  clear  traces  of  this  states- 
manlike statute  in  the  requirement  that  a  magistrate  of  the  state 
should  alone  have  power  to  legalize  marriages,  they  being  so 
jealous  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  civil  government  in  this  partic- 
ular that  they  would  not  allow  a  minister  to  "  preach  a  sermon  " 
on  the  occasion  of  a  "  great  marriage,"  lest  he  detract  from  the 
civil  dignit}^  although  he  might  be  "  present  and  make  a  short  ex- 
hortation." We  have  not  kept  the  exclusive  magisterial  function 
in  the  marriage  ceremony,  but  we  do  require  that  the  minister  shall 
recognize  his  power  to  legalize  the  union  of  a  man  and  a  woman 
as  a  delegated  one,  and  to  say  "  by  the  power  vested  in  me  by  the 
State  I  pronounce  you  husband  and  wife." 

In  retaining  the  Germanic  ideals  of  the  private  nature  of  mar- 
riage and  the  sovereignty  of  personal  choice  in  wedlock,  we  have 
5'et  not  lost  sight  of  the  primitive  function  of  the  family  as  the 
seed-plot  of  civic  institutions.  Martin  Luther  said  of  marriage: 
"  It  is  the  source  of  domestic  and  public  government,  the  founda- 
tion of  human  society,  without  which  it  would  fall  to  pieces." 
This  view  has  been  built  into  our  own  social  ideals  and  customs; 
but  we  have  added  a  far  more  tender  consideration  for  the  needs 
and  wishes  of  each  member  of  the  family  than  has  been  shown  in 
any  previous  social  order,  and  we  are  more  jealous  of  the  rights 
of  each  individual  as  a  unit  of  society  than  of  the  strict  autonomy 
of  the  family  group.  This  consideration  for  the  individual  is 
giving  us  greater  freedom  within  the  family,  and  greater  ease  of 
separation  from  the  family  for  those  desiring  social  rearrangement. 


233 

The  physiology  of  the  family  is  far  more  important,  be  it  re- 
membered, as  an  object  of  study  than  is  the  pathology  of  marriage. 
Even  in  acute  social  disease  the  attention  should  not  be  concen- 
trated upon  symptoms  of  disorder,  but  constantly  fixed  upon  stan- 
dards of  social  health.  We  need  give,  therefore,  but  a  few  words 
to  the  summing  up  the  course  of  historic  evolution  in  the  matter 
of  separation  and  divorce  of  married  couples. 

In  some  forms  of  primitive  society  divorce  was  easy  for  the  man, 
impossible  for  the  woman ;  in  some,  easy  for  both ;  in  others,  pos- 
sible for  neither.  In  the  patriarchal  family  of  legal  headship 
vested  in  the  father,  divorce  could  not  terminate  the  religious  mar- 
riage, but  there  were  ways  by  which  the  husband  could  be  relieved 
of  conditions  which  proved  intolerable  to  him.  In  most  forms  of 
social  order,  domestic  conditions,  religious  ideals  and  economic 
restrictions  have  united  to  make  it  difficult,  when  not  impossible, 
for  women  to  escape  from  matrimonial  bonds  found  irksome;  and 
in  most  forms  of  social  order  arrangements  have  been  made  to 
relieve  men,  either  legally  or  by  social  permission,  from  the 
effects  of  a  serious  mistake  in  marriage.  Of  late  we  have  grown 
more  tolerant  of  divorce.  Women  have  gained  power  to  manage 
their  own  lives  outside  the  marriage  bond,  which  enables  them 
to  seek  divorce  at  will;  and  we  are  witnessing  an  increase 
in  domestic  changes  which  to  many  seems  socially  dangerous.  On 
the  other  hand  there  is  a  growing  feeling  that  the  spirit  rather 
than  the  letter  of  the  marriage  vows  should  be  conserved,  and 
although  all  do  not  agree  with  Milton  that  "  divorce  is  equitable," 
few  are  sure  that  legal  dissolutions  are  always  wrong. 

From  this  tangled  mass  of  tradition  and  custom,  from  many 
periods  of  confusing  inconsistency  between  ideals  and  practice,  we 
have  come  to  our  modern  problems  of  marriage  and  divorce.  We 
are  now  imperatively  called  upon  to  evolve  a  definite,  conscious, 
ethical  ideal  of  the  family  suited  to  our  present  conditions  in 
respect  to  all  other  social  relations:  an  ideal  which  shall  guide  us 
in  making  our  laws  in  the  United  States  more  intelligible,  more 
consistent,  more  uniform,  and  which  shall  aid  in  making  our  family 
life  more  effective  for  social  ends.  We  have  now,  as  a  means 
to  this  end,  to  study,  in  a  freer  state  than  has  before  been  known, 
the  fruits  of  this  mingled  social  inheritance  in  the  family  order; 


234 

to  preserve  such  elements  of  past  laws  and  conditions  as  suit  our 
present  needs,  to  reject  all  legal  enactments  and  traditional  cus- 
toms which  are  outgrown  or  socially  obstructive,  and  to  adopt  a 
radically  constructive  attitude  toward  the  most  vital  of  all  human 
institutions.  The  standard  which  must  guide  us  in  this  process  of 
utilizing  past  experience  for  the  benefit  of  present  and  future  life 
is  the  same  standard  we  have  to  apply  to  all  social  institutions ; 
namely,  the  standard  of  social  serviceableness,  in  the  high  sense  of 
that  which  is  conducive  to  the  spiritual  evolution  of  the  race.  In 
applying  that  standard  we  must  ask  first.  What  are  the  objects  of 
the  family?  and  second,  How  may  those  objects  be  obtained  in 
modern  social  conditions? 

The  first  object  of  the  family  is  the  protection,  nurture  and  de- 
velopment of  child  life,  the  process  which  insures  the  continuance 
and  the  improvement  of  the  race. 

The  second  object  of  the  family  is  the  external  but  necessary 
arrangement  by  which  matters  of  name,  descent,  the  holding  and 
transfer  of  propert}^  and  the  economic  support  of  dependent  per- 
sons are  held  in  the  autonomy  of  a  well-knit  group,  in  the  midst 
of  a  larger  social  organization  less  concerned  with  the  welfare  of 
the  "  solitary  set  in  families." 

The  third  object  of  the  family  is  the  moral  discipline  of  its 
members,  by  means  of  the  closest  and  most  affectional  of  ties,  in 
the  direction  of  cooperative  capacity  as  members  of  the  state  and  of 
society  at  large. 

The  fourth  object  of  the  family,  and  the  most  modern  one,  is 
the  development  of  a  free,  self-disciplined  personality  in  its  mem- 
bers, as  a  needed  preparation  for  the  rapidly  increasing  democracy 
of  the  modern  social  order.  This  last  and  most  modern  demand 
upon  the  family  places  upon  all  ethical  leaders  of  the  present  time 
a  peculiar  task  of  attempted  reincarnation  of  old  sanctions  for 
conduct  in  new  forms  suited  to  the  new  educational,  industrial 
and  political  conditions. 

How  may  we  work  toward  these  objects  of  the  family  if  we 
accept  them  as  vital  and  to  be  sought  after? 

First,  the  primal  object  of  the  family,  the  well-being  of  off- 
spring, can  alone  be  secured  in  the  present,  and  in  any  future  in 
sight,  as  it  has  been  in  the  past,  by  a  measurably  stable  family  life, 


235 

attained  by  a  frank  and  obedient  acceptance  of  marriage  as  having 
more  than  personal  significance,  that  is  as  being  a  matter  of  social 
concern.  Marriage  is  that  central  element  of  sex-union  required 
and  developed  by  the  family  in  accordance  with  commonly  ac- 
cepted beliefs  concerning  the  objects  of  the  family.  Marriage 
must  therefore  be  looked  upon  as  a  subordinate  element  of  the 
family  order,  rather  than  as  a  purely  individualistic  contract. 
Legal  separation  and  divorce  are  the  means  by  which  pathological 
conditions  of  family  life  are  regulated  in  the  interests  of  accepted 
social  organization  and  accepted  claims  of  personal  justice;  and 
therefore  separation  and  divorce  are  elements  of  the  family  order 
and  not  purely  individualistic  terminations  of  personal  contract. 
We  cannot,  therefore,  accept  as  valid  Milton's  ideal  of  marriage 
as  an  arrangement  solely  for  the  happiness  of  men  and  women. 
Society  in  our  modern  world,  more  than  in  ancient  times,  has  to 
pay  the  penalty  for  the  wrongdoing,  the  mistake,  or  the  incom- 
petency of  the  parents  of  children.  Marriage  is,  indeed,  the 
highest  means  we  have  for  securing  the  happiness  of  the  majority 
of  human  beings;  but  the  happiness  of  each  and  all  who  are  mar- 
ried is  not  alone  the  end  in  an  institution  upon  which  we  depend 
as  a  channel  for  life's  progressive  currents.  Therefore  any  form 
of  excessive  individualism  that  ignores  or  evades  social  control  of 
marriage,  any  childish  rebellion  against  the  hardships  of  the  legal 
bond,  any  revolt  of  personal  whim  or  selfishness  that  could  not 
safely  become  the  rule  for  the  majority  of  humanity,  must  not 
be  allowed  to  secure  for  individuals  exemption  from  social  obliga- 
tion in  the  married  life.  Hence  we  must  seek  to  secure  in  some 
form  consistent  with  our  modern  political  and  ethical  ideals,  a 
form  of  social  control  of  the  family  which  shall  be  more  efficient 
than  our  present  confused  and  hesitant  direction.  As  a  first  step 
in  that  tendency  teachers  of  ethics  and  religion  must  place  clearly 
before  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men  and  women  the  supreme 
need  and  righteousness  of  some  form  of  social  control  of  the  mod- 
ern family.  With  the  common  acceptance  of  that  ideal  the 
method  of  its  application  can  be  developed  with  comparative  ease. 
It  should  be  more  clearly  understood  that  our  own  is  the  first 
form  of  civilization  that  has  tried  in  any  large  way  the  experiment 
of  placing  the  entire  burden  of  the  success  of  the  family  upon  the 


236 

characters  and  capacities  of  two  persons.  In  primitive  social 
orders,  and  in  the  older  civih'zations,  each  married  pair  and  their 
children  were  sustained,  disciplined  and  controlled  by  the  collect- 
ive family  order  in  which  they  lived.  Now  we  trust  two  people 
in  early  youth,  undisciplined,  undeveloped,  perhaps  deficient  in 
mental,  moral,  physical  or  economic  power,  to  marry  as  they  will; 
bear  children  without  let  or  hindrance;  take  care  of  them  or  not 
as  seems  desirable  or  possible  to  them ;  separate  with  ease  with  or 
without  legal  procedure,  and  the  burden  of  all  the  failures  in  mar- 
riage are  placed  directly  upon  society  as  a  whole.  The  conse- 
quences of  this  daring  dependence  upon  individuals  in  the  family 
life  has  brought  us  to  the  point  where  we  see  clearly  that  what 
society  accepts  in  its  consequences  as  its  burden,  it  must  control 
as  its  right  and  duty. 

What  social  institution  do  we  now  possess  equal  to  the  task  of 
social  control  of  the  modern  family?     But  one  —  the  state. 

The  old  tyranny  of  tribal  custom  is  gone;  the  later  despotism 
of  the  patriarchate  is  no  more ;  the  unquestioned  rule  of  rabbi  and 
priest  no  longer  exists ;  the  family  bond  is  already  stretched  to 
cover  so  wide  an  area  of  personal  choice  that  it  cannot  hold  firm 
against  unsafe  or  unwise  choices.  The  modern  state  has  absorbed 
within  itself  the  "  mother-right "  and  the  "  father-rule,"  the 
church  control  and  the  educational  standard.  The  modern  state 
is  the  final  appeal  in  individual  need  and  the  ultimate  authority 
in  social  conduct.  Of  all  modern  social  institutions  the  state  alone 
is  now  powerful  enough,  definite  enough  and  ethical  enough,  to 
accept  for  all  mankind  alike  the  responsibility  of  care,  control  and 
development  of  the  individual  life.  It  is  therefore  the  only  insti- 
tution powerful  enough,  definite  enough  and  ethical  enough,  to 
really  control,  in  the  interest  of  social  progress,  the  family,  which 
is  the  first  and  most  vital  agency  by  which  the  individual  is  ren- 
dered fit  for  society. 

The  most  important  thing,  therefore,  for  the  stability  of  the 
family  and  for  the  better  securing  of  its  primal  object  of  child- 
care  and  nurture  is  insistence  upon  a  uniform  civil  marriage  serv- 
ice. This  should  be  conditioned  upon  previous  application  for 
license,  proper  delay  in  securing  evidence  that  there  is  no  impedi- 
ment to  the  marriage,  and  as  careful  preliminary  inquiry  in  all 


237 

essential  matters  as  may  be  possible.  This  civil  marriage  should 
be  limited  in  form  to  such  words  as  persons  of  all  religious  faiths 
could  conscientiously  use;  should  be  performed  in  such  places  as 
would  safeguard  privacy  and  protect  from  all  trivial  and  coarse 
associations;  should  be  performed  only  by  special  magistrates  set 
aside  for  this  important  function  and  capable  of  properly  represent- 
ing the  dignity  and  power  of  the  state.  It  was  a  backward  step 
in  the  United  States  when  religious  ministers  and  civil  magistrates 
were  put  upon  the  same  plane  of  authority  in  respect  to  marriage, 
even  although  a  civil  license  was  demanded  as  a  preliminary  to  the 
nuptial  ceremonj\  We  are  too  divided  in  ideal  and  practice  in 
the  religious  world  to-day,  we  are  too  deficient  in  a  common 
standard  of  what  a  clergyman  should  be  and  do,  we  are  too  lack- 
ing in  ethical  unity  in  church  creeds  for  any  church  or  all  the 
churches  in  Christendom  combined  to  safely  acquire  a  right  equiv- 
alent to  that  of  an  officer  of  the  state  in  a  matter  that  concerns  the 
whole  of  society  in  such  vital  fashion  as  does  the  organization  of 
family  life.  It  is  natural  that  churches  which,  like  the  Jewish, 
have  brought  down  through  the  ages  the  judicial  and  mandatory 
powers  of  the  religious  ruler  should  hold  on  to  the  control  of  mar- 
riage and  divorce.  It  is  natural  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
which  absorbed  the  patriarchal  forms  from  Roman  civilization, 
should  still  feel  it  a  duty  to  declare  what  constitutes  true  mar- 
riage. It  is  natural  that  a  sect  which,  like  the  Friends,  has  made 
the  church  a  form  of  social  organization  covering  property,  educa- 
tion and  other  concerns  now  generally  absorbed  by  the  state, 
should  have  taken  upon  itself  the  control  of  marriage,  along  with 
charity  and  reformatory  work  and  all  forms  of  social  care  for  the 
fruits  of  marriage.  But  there  is  great  inconsistency  in  younger 
sects,  small  bodies  of  ultra-protestants  which  base  their  union  on 
personal  faith  alone,  asking  to  be  invested  with  state  powers  in 
regard  to  so  important  a  social  service. 

In  proportion  as  religion  grows  spiritual  and  individual,  in  that 
proportion  it  grows  less  ecclesiastical,  and  therefore  less  fitted  for 
legal  functions.  The  time  has  come  when  great  divergence  of 
religious  opinion  and  much  weakening  of  religious  discipline  make 
it  necessarj'  for  social  safety  and  progress  that  the  state  assume 
over  all  classes  of  believers  and  non-believers  its  rightful  suprema- 


238 

cy  in  this  matter.  Any  chosen  form  may  "  solemnize  "  a  mar- 
riage, and  the  more  dear  and  intimate  such  ceremony  the  better. 
But  one  form  should  "  legalize  "  marriage,  and  that  the  one  by 
which  society  safeguards,  defines  and  controls  its  most  indispensable 
function  of  family  life.  For  this  form,  however,  we  cannot  use 
ill-bred  magistrates  of  inferior  courts  who  have  perhaps  gained 
their  positions  by  political  trickery ;  nor  can  we  leave  the  details 
of  such  a  ceremony  to  chance.  The  beautiful  "  Halls  of  Mar- 
riage "  of  some  European  cities  might  well  be  reproduced  in  the 
United!  States,  and  justices  who  were  no  longer  capable  of  the 
hardest  work  of  the  courts,  but  who  had  proved  themselves  of  most 
honorable  character,  be  set  aside  for  this  task  as  a  distinction  of 
high  social  service. 

If  we  could  once  thus  establish  the  state  in  its  rightful  place 
of  social  control  of  marriage  we  could  begin  to  do  definite  things 
now  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  attempt,  in  order  to  render  the 
family  more  stable  than  it  is  now.  The  most  vital  treatment  of 
pathological  conditions  in  the  modern  family  is  not  to  tinker  with 
divorce  but  to  take  radical  measures  to  prevent  so  many  people 
from  marrying  who  should  not  marry,  and  whose  parenthood  is 
a  social  danger  and  disgrace.  The  stability  of  the  family  depends 
not  solely  or  chiefly  upon  keeping  people  together  who  have  mar- 
ried, but  in  removing  from  the  currents  of  family  descent  the 
poisonous  elements  of  physical  and  psychological  degeneracy.  Ex- 
perience has  proved  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  the  largest 
producing  cause  of  human  misery  and  social  retardation  is  the  mar- 
riage and  breeding  of  their  kind  of  the  feeble-minded,  the  epileptic, 
the  victims  of  diseases  induced  by  vicious  lives  and  those  of  degen- 
erative psychosis  tending  toward  insanity  or  crime.  We  have 
moie  of  these  degenerates,  comparatively  speaking,  than  preceding 
civilizations,  because  we  keep  them  alive  where  under  harsher  con- 
ditions nature  would  kill  them  off  more  quickly.  We  are  there- 
fore under  bonds,  if  we  would  not  have  our  growth  in  charity 
hinder  our  progress  in  health  and  power,  to  see  to  it  that  these  un- 
fortunates do  not  "  bring  forth  seed  after  their  kind."  The  state 
of  Indiana  has  led  the  way  by  its  statute  declaring  that  "  No 
licence  to  marry  shall  be  issued  where  either  of  the  parties  is  an 
imbecile,  epileptic,  of  insane  mind ;  or  to  any  male  person  who  has 


239 

been  within  five  years  an  inmate  of  any  asylum  or  home  for  in- 
digent persons,  unless  it  satisfactorily  appears  that  at  the  time  of 
application  for  the  marriage  license  the  applicant  is  able  to  sup- 
port a  family  and  likely  to  do  so;  nor  shall  any  licence  issue  when 
either  of  the  contracting  parties  is  afflicted  with  a  transmissible 
disease  or  at  the  time  of  making  the  application  under  the  influ- 
ence of  intoxicating  liquors  or  narcotic  drugs."  The  other  way 
of  approaching  the  end  of  protecting  the  family  against  degen- 
erative influences  is  to  place  in  permanent  custodial  care  all  those 
proved  unfit  for  life  and  therefore  unfit  for  marriage.  Unfor- 
tunately we  have  only  about  one-tenth  of  those  needing  such 
custodial  care  now  protected  in  an  adequate  manner;  but  exam- 
ple is  setting  in  that  direction.  A  tendency  also  is  now  started 
toward  the  sterilizing  of  vicious  and  criminal  persons  who  cannot 
well  be  kept  in  permanent  custodial  care,  but  should  not  be  al- 
lowed to  taint  the  social  fabric  with  their  degenerate  lives.  In 
increasing  measure  we  must  use  the  power  of  the  state  to  remove 
from  the  problems  of  marriage  and  divorce  those  hopelessly 
pathological  elements  known  to  be  most  inimical  to  the  welfare 
of  offspring  and  the  health  of  the  social  body. 

Second :  the  family  autonomy  in  relation  to  economic  conditions 
must  be  adjusted  to  quite  new  social  demands.  The  granting  of 
property  rights  and  contract  powers  to  married  women,  inevitable 
as  a  result  of  new  conceptions  of  individual  rights,  has  disar- 
ranged the  old  and  simple  plan  of  placing  both  financial  power  and 
economic  responsibility  in  the  hands  of  the  male  head  of  the  family. 
The  whole  question  of  financial  responsibility  of  men  and  women 
toward  their  "  other  halves,"  and  of  both  parents  toward  their 
common  children,  as  well  as  the  larger  question  of  economic  family 
responsibility  for  the  care  of  the  aged  and  helpless  members  of 
society,  must  come  up  for  careful  reconsideration  now  that  women 
have  "  bankbooks  "  and  minors  have  "  pay  envelopes."  "  Non- 
support  "  is  often  given  as  a  reason  for  divorce ;  doubtless  oftener 
than  is  honest,  as  the  charge  often  covers  more  serious  offenses 
against  the  marriage  covenant.  The  laws  under  which  divorce 
is  granted  for  this  cause,  and  those  by  which  "  alimony  "  or  "  sep- 
arate maintenance  "  are  secured,  have  not  been  adjusted  consistent- 
ly to  the  new  financial  independence  of  women,  and  work  injustice. 


240 

sometimes  to  men  and  sometimes  to  women,  and  often  to  the  chil- 
dren involved.  Again,  the  fact  that  women,  whether  married  or 
single,  when  doing  their  work  outside  the  home  receive  salary  or 
wages,  to  hold  or  expend  in  their  own  right,  reacts  upon  the  labor 
of  the  housewife  within  the  home  in  a  way  not  always  favorable. 
Perhaps  no  one  thing  of  such  external  nature  would  tend  more  to 
the  stability  and  happiness  of  average  family  life  to-day  than  some 
form  of  legal  and  just  appraising  of  the  services  of  the  house- 
mother in  the  home.  The  large  area  of  domestic  labor  which  has 
been  absorbed  by  the  new  machine-dominated  industry  offers 
wages  to  women  secured  by  law.  The  economic  value  of  the 
house-mother  in  those  forms  of  service  which  have  not,  and  perhaps 
never  can  be  rendered  strictly  "  productive  "  in  the  usual  sense  of 
that  word,  the  economic  values  of  intelligent  saving,  wise 
spending,  the  conservation  of  mental  and  physical  force  through 
family  protection  and  increased  happiness,  this  is  not  recognized 
as  having  any  market  value.  The  poet  says  of  a  woman:  "  The 
charm  of  her  presence  was  felt  when  she  went."  The  economic 
value  of  the  house-mother's  service  is  felt  when  she  dies,  or  falls 
ill  and  the  price  of  her  substitute  or  substitutes  is  reckoned !  The 
married  state  has  now  to  compete  in  attractiveness  to  women  on  its 
economic  side,  and  for  the  first  time  in  any  large  way  with  inde- 
pendent earning  at  some  congenial  specialized  labor  for  which 
opportunities  of  training  are  offered  to  girls  on  all  sides.  If  the 
persistent  devotion  of  women  to  the  more  diffused,  and  yet  seem- 
ingly vital  processes  of  intensive  family  service  to  husband,  chil- 
dren, the  aged  members  of  the  family  and  the  general  home- 
making,  are  to  be  retained,  they  must  come  at  last  to  be  reckoned 
at  some  definite  value  which  will  give  women  a  share  in  the  cur- 
rent family  income  as  well  as  give  her  responsibility  with  man  for 
the  common  family  needs. 

The  third  object  of  the  family,  that  of  the  moral  discipline  of 
its  members  as  preparation  for  larger  social  cooperation,  is  now 
subject  to  many  demands  for  readjustment,  both  of  ideals  and  cus- 
toms. Sociologists  are  now  telling  us  that  the  home  was  never, 
relatively  to  other  social  forces,  so  weak  in  power  over  the  individ- 
ual life.  Certainly  many  elements  of  common  environment  assail 
the  integrity  of  parental  control  and  the  established  standards  of 


241 

the  home.  In  the  first  place  ours  is  a  fluid  civilization.  Those 
older  stays  for  wandering  fancies  and  weak  wills  which  inhered 
in  a  fixed  order  of  things  have  been  taken  away  and  one  must 
carry  his  conscience  with  him  on  his  travels  or  lose  it  altogether. 
Family  affection  no  longer  nestles  about  familiar  places  in  the  case 
of  the  multitude.  The  "  flat  "  on  which  the  city  family  perches 
for  a  year  or  less  is  not  the  aid  to  settled  habits  that  the  old  home- 
stead was.  Again,  in  this  more  migratory  family  life  of  the  pres- 
ent day  the  parents  are  not  left  in  seclusion  to  impress  their  own 
ideals  and  standards  upon  their  children.  The  adult  world  of 
thought  and  action  has  access  to  children  and  youth  as  never  be- 
fore, through  the  newspaper,  the  varied  entertainments,  the  public 
library,  the  street  sights  and  sounds,  the  very  school  itself;  so  that 
the  shielding  of  childhood  and  \'Outh  from  prevailing  world  cur- 
rents to  which  parents  may  object  is  more  difficult  than  ever  be- 
fore. Again  the  democratizing  of  the  family,  rightly  insisted  upon 
as  essential  to  our  present  political  conditions,  has  its  own  dangers; 
and  there  must  be  earnest  and  intelligent  effort  to  prevent  the  pay- 
ment of  a  price  of  change  more  costly  than  is  required.  When 
there  was  one  family  head,  discipline  was  comparatively  easy  to 
secure  along  accepted  lines.  Now  that  there  are  "  two  heads  in 
council,"  and  that  even  the  children  are  consulted  in  their  own 
upbringing  (as  befits  potential  citizens),  it  is  far  more  difficult 
to  decide  what  one  should  try  to  accomplish  in  parental  control, 
as  well  as  far  more  difficult  to  accomplish  that  which  the  parents 
really  attempt.  Moreover,  without  intending  that  particular  re- 
sult, the  modern  conscious  effort  toward  social  improvement  is 
forcibly  lessening  the  trust  and  confidence  of  many  children  in  the 
wisdom  and  power  of  their  parents  and  often  prematurely  depriv- 
ing them  of  that  ancient  safeguard  against  evil.  For  example,  all 
enlightened  communities  are  now  engaged  in  a  warfare  against 
bodily  weakness  and  disease.  In  that  warfare  a  certain  standard 
of  cleanliness  and  decency  of  living  is  being  enforced  through  the 
activities  of  the  boards  of  health.  This  requires  certain  radical 
changes  in  the  ways  of  living  of  many  people,  especially  of  newly 
arrived  immigrants.  A  significant  illustration  of  the  effect  of 
this  activity  in  behalf  of  health  is  to  be  found  in  the  story  of  little 
Anita  and  her  mother.     In  the  fine  new  public  schoolhouse   which 


242 

Anita  attended  there  were  baths  and  all  manner  of  devices  to 
attract  to  cleanliness.  But  Anita  refused  them  all.  Whereupon 
a  note  was  sent  to  Anita's  mother  explaining  that  all  the  children 
must  take  a  bath  at  least  once  a  week  in  the  fine  equipment  of  the 
school.  Whereupon  Anita's  mother  sent  the  following  note: 
"  shall  I  unsew  my  child  out  of  the  warm  woolen  clothes  I  have 
sewed  her  into  for  the  winter?  No,  I  will  not.  Water  on  the 
bare  skin  in  winter  is  not  well.  She  shall  be  warm  and  she  shall 
not  be  wet.  I  am  a  good  mother.  Besides,  she  goes  to  school  to 
learn  books  and  not  to  be  washed,  and  she  can  learn  books  if  she 
is  dirty."  We  are  all  convinced  that  Anita  should  be  washed, 
and  that  very  strong  moral  suasion  must  be  brought  to  bear  to 
secure  that  result.  But  the  conflict  between  the  teacher's  stan- 
dards and  those  of  the  mother  must  weaken  Anita's  confidence 
in  her  mother's  judgment;  and  when  she  gets  her  "working 
papers  "  and  her  own  "  pay  envelope  "  at  the  early  age  of  fourteen 
she  will  very  likely  despise  her  mother's  genuine  wisdom  of  life 
in  ways  she  most  needs  to  guide  and  protect  her  in  the  industrial 
struggle.  These  dangerous  chasms  between  the  children  and  the 
parents  must  be  bridged  so  far  as  possible  by  a  finer  technique  of 
social  service  than  we  have  yet  acquired,  or  we  shall  sacrifice  too 
many  personal  lives  in  the  processes  of  social  advance. 

The  fourth  object  of  the  family,  the  development  of  an  efficient 
personality  in  each  of  its  members,  is  also  subject  to  new  social 
demands  in  ways  that  give  the  thoughtful  much  anxiety.  The 
thoroughgoing  and  wholly  consistent  democratization  of  the  family 
in  respect  to  its  adult  members  is  an  essential  in  this  process  of 
development  of  personality,  and  the  democratic  state  cannot  be 
fully  developed  until  a  democratic  family  insures  an  interior 
training  for  citizenship.  In  an  aristocratic  regime  one  command- 
ing personality  at  the  head  of  both  the  domestic  organization  and 
the  political  body  may  be  sufficient  to  serve  as  a  model  for  sub- 
servient imitation  by  the  mass  of  people,  within  and  without  the 
home.  On  the  other  hand,  in  a  state  which  demands  self-control, 
self-direction,  self-support  and  self-expression  from  every  normal 
adult  person  in  its  constituency,  in  order  to  secure  its  own  ends 
of  progressive  political  association,  the  family  must  be  organized 
in  such  fashion  as  to  develop  these  qualities  in  each  of  its  mem- 


243 

bers.  The  democratization  of  the  family,  therefore,  is  the  spirit- 
ual equivalent  of  political  democracy.  As  such  it  is  inevitable 
and  wholly  desirable;  but  its  initiation  causes  some  "growing 
pains."  It  is  in  this  area  of  the  development  of  personality  that 
tendencies  develop  toward  increased  divorce.  Women  are  now 
seeking  divorce  in  larger  numbers  than  men.  Under  almost  every 
form  of  marriage  men  have  found  a  way  to  mitigate  for  themselves 
the  tragedy  of  an  undesired  domestic  bond.  Women  until  these 
later  days  of  democracy  have  never,  except  for  short  intervals  and 
under  unusual  conditions  (such  as  those  attending  the  decline  of 
Roman  civilization),  had  freedom  of  personality  either  in  or  out 
of  marriage.  As  in  the  phrase  of  Dr.  Johnson,  so  in  law  and 
public  opinion,  there  has  been  always  "  a  boundless  difference 
between  the  infidelity  of  man  and  woman  "  which  forced  women 
to  endure  in  their  husbands  that  which,  manifested  in  themselves, 
would  have  freed  their  husbands  from  all  marital  responsibility. 
In  like  manner  the  self-assertion  of  rights  which  in  man  has  been 
one  of  the  priceless  assets  in  the  growth  of  personality,  in  woman 
has  been  considered  a  perversion  of  nature;  because  until  freedom 
for  women  was  possible  there  could  be  no  wholesome  avenue  of 
social  expression  of  woman's  individuality. 

To-day  the  ancient  object  of  the  family,  that  of  moral  discipline 
for  social  ends,  and  the  modern  object  of  the  family,  that  of  the 
development  of  personality  for  the  uses  of  a  democratic  social 
order,  are  both  concerned  in  lifting  the  standard  of  sexual  moral- 
ity, equally  for  men  and  for  women,  to  a  higher  plane.  In  this 
process  women  in  their  new  freedom  will  not  endure  the  unspeak- 
able indignities  and  hopeless  suffering  they  have  been  compelled 
to  endure  in  the  past.  That  last  outrage  upon  a  chaste  wife  and 
faithful  mother,  enforced  physical  union  with  a  husband  and  father 
whose  touch  is  pollution  and  whose  heritage  to  his  children  is 
disease  and  death,  will  less  and  less  be  tolerated  by  individual 
women  or  by  an  enlightened  ethical  standard.  In  so  far  as  the  in- 
crease in  divorces  is  a  testimony  to  this  movement  of  women  to 
refuse  marital  relations  with  unfit  men  it  is  a  movement  for  the 
benefit  of  the  family  and  not  for  its  injur}\  Hence  it  is  as  idle 
as  the  blowing  of  the  wind  for  any  solemn  company,  composed 
wholly  of  men  and  chiefly  of  ecclesiastics,  to  pass  resolutions  call- 


244 

ing  for  the  reinstatement  of  an  indissoluble  marriage  bond  and  for 
the  subjection  of  wives  to  their  "  conjugal  duty  "  whatever  their 
feelings   or   condition   may   be.     Permanent  and   legal   separation 
is  now  seen  to  be  just  and  necessary  in  cases  of  moral  delinquency. 
Whether  such  separation  shall  include  power  of  remarriage  is  still 
much  m.ooted  in  many  quarters.     It  would  seem  wise  to  infer  from 
all  that  one  knows  of  social  changes  that  there  must  be  many 
methods  of  readjustment  tried  before  we  shall  secure  such  a  uni- 
form law  as  will  do  justice  both  to  the  individual  life  and  the 
social  claim ;  and  that  hence  dogmatism  is  out  of  place  and  careful 
treatment  of  each  case  as  it  arises,  on  its  own  merits,  is  the  safe 
and   helpful   method.     The   tendency,    however,    in   all   fields   of 
thought  and  effort  is  away  from  "  eternal  punishment  "  here  or 
hereafter,  and  in  the  direction  of  belief  in  the  power  of  self-recov- 
ery and  of  trying  even  vital  experiments  of  life  over  again  in  hope 
of  the  better  outcome.     It  is  likely  that  marriage  and  divorce  will 
prove  no  exception  to  this  hopeful  tendency  of  moral  endeavor. 
Moreover,   so   far  the  testimony  of  actual  life  in  the  countries 
where  no  remarriage  is  allowed  shows  a  lower  standard  of  marital 
faithfulness,  of  child-care  and  of  the  conservation  and  culture  of 
the  moral  nature  of  the  members  of  the  family  group,  than  is 
shown   in   the  countries   that  grant  absolute  divorce  for  serious 
causes.     The  number  of  divorces  and  remarriages  in  our  country, 
although  showing  considerable  marital  unhappiness,   is  not  large 
enough   to  indicate  any  widespread  social   disease.     And  even  if 
such  serious  conditions  were  indicated  the  chief  reliance  for  cure 
must  be  upon  the  moral  development  of  men  and  women  rather 
than  upon  the  external  pressure  of  laws.     It  is  true,  however,  that 
while  proper  self-assertion  and  regard  for  personal  dignity  and  the 
conservation  of  true  personality  may  lead  to  proper  changes  in 
marital  relations,  the  self-assertion  of  the  foolish  and  the  selfish, 
and  the  undeveloped  may  lead  to  marital  changes  which  are  unnec- 
essary and  harmful.     The  social  need  in  respect  to  divorce  to-day 
is  not  to  try  to  hold  together  by  main  strength  of  law  and  public 
opinion  those  who  cannot  be  either  morally  helpful  to  each  other, 
truly  devoted  to  the  children's  welfare,  or  happy  themselves  in 
their  present  relationship;  the  social  need  is  rather  to  prevent  sep- 
arations of  married  couples  on  trivial  grounds  of  pique,  sudden 


245 

temper,  childish  whim  or  the  mere  suggestive  power  of  newspaper 
scandals.  The  social  need  is  not  for  the  immediate  working  out 
of  all  details  of  a  uniform  law,  while  yet  rapidly  changing  social 
and  industrial  conditions  make  variety  of  experimental  treatment 
of  cultural  value;  the  social  need  is  rather  for  a  legal  provision 
every^where  which  will  secure  more  deliberation  before  action, 
more  accessible  counsel  of  the  wise  and  good  for  the  foolish  and 
confused,  more  patient  waiting,  more  earnest  trial  to  "  patch  it 
up  "  and  "  go  on  "  even  when  things  look  dark  and  threatening. 
It  is  becoming  more  and  more  the  custom  to  establish  special  courts 
for  particular  classes  and  kinds  of  adjudications;  such  as  the  "  chil- 
dren's court,"  the  "  industrial  arbitration  court,"  etc.  It  has  been 
suggested,  and  wisely,  that  there  should  be  a  "  court  of  domestic 
differences,"  a  special  legal  hearing  for  those  seeking  separation 
or  divorce.  Into  such  a  special  court,  founded  upon  some  law 
giving  the  state  power  to  exact  a  deliberate  and  dignified  method 
of  discussion  before  action,  thus  preventing  haste  and  vulgar  pub- 
licity, the  "probation  system"  might  be  introduced;  separation 
securing  immediate  relief  when  necessary,  but  divorce  allowed  only 
after  patient  effort,  under  the  direct  control  and  aid  of  the  court, 
had  failed  to  render  the  union  successful.  Passion  and  selfishness 
have  put  asunder  many  a  couple  who  could  have  won  a  lasting  hap- 
piness together  through  ethical  discipline  and  wise  help  in  their 
time  of  need. 

To  many  observers  the  modern  increase  of  divorce  is  not  only  an 
unmitigated  evil  but  a  sign  of  abnormal  development  in  women, 
and  hence  a  symptom  of  extreme  social  disease.  It  is  certainly 
true  that  the  present  condition  of  women  marks  an  unprecedented 
social  revolution.  From  the  position  of  a  minor  they  have  as- 
sumed more  and  more  the  place  of  a  citizen ;  from  a  condition  of 
"  status  "  they  have  passed  to  a  condition  of  "  contract."  Equality 
of  opportunity  in  education;  freedom  of  choice  in  employment; 
economic  independence  and  complete  property  rights;  the  mani- 
fold diversions  of  a  newly  acquired  social  freedom;  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  home  from  the  work-demands  of  the  handicraft  stage  of 
domestic  labor,  and  the  effect  of  machine-dominated  industry  to 
give  women's  work  a  commercial  value;  the  state  appropriation 
of  "  women's  organic  office  of  teaching  "  and  the  consequent  em- 


246 

ployment  of  thousands  of  women  as  public  officials  in  the  schools; 
the  new  delight,  often  almost  an  intoxication,  of  free  expression 
of  personality  in  artistic  and  intellectual  fields  heretofore  closed 
to  all  but  an  infinitesimal  fraction  of  womankind ;  the  splendid 
enthusiasms  for  social  uplift  which  the  modern  power  of  women 
opens  to  their  consciousness,  with  the  new  opportunity  of  pouring 
into  service  for  the  public  weal  women's  age-long  accumulations 
of  social  sympathy  —  all  these  things  give  women  a  new,  and  to 
many  a  perilous,  power  of  self-assertion.  That  the  great  mass  of 
^\■omen  are  still  so  humbly  patient  at  the  old  tasks,  that 
they  still  unquestionably  place  the  welfare  of  children  and 
even  of  husbands  and  the  aged  and  sick  of  their  families  before 
the  full  realization  of  their  own  personal  wishes,  is  proof  that  the 
nature  of  women  is  essentially  social,  and  her  bent  unconquerably 
toward  the  perfection  of  family  life.  It  could  not  be,  however, 
that  so  radical  a  change  in  the  lives  and  conditions  of  all  "  human 
beings  of  the  mother  sex,"  most  intimately  connected  with  the  cen- 
tral values  of  family  life  as  they  are,  should  be  effected  without 
some  disturbance  of  that  part  of  the  social  order  we  call  the  family. 
As  in  all  forms  of  social  disturbance  incidental  to  increase  in  dem- 
ocracy, however,  the  way  out  is  the  way  on,  not  the  way  back. 

The  great  demand  to-day  is  for  a  reincarnation  of  the  old  sanc- 
tities of  life  in  new  forms.  The  old  ideal  of  marriage  as  a  sacra- 
ment of  religion  has  still  its  place;  not  in  the  old  form  that  ele- 
vates one  church  ceremony  above  all  other  rituals  and  denies  the 
right  of  adult  human  beings  to  free  themselves  from  intolerable 
conditions  after  certain  formulae  have  been  pronounced ;  but  in 
the  new  form  that  makes  marriage  a  spiritual  bond  and  its  end 
the  moral  culture  of  the  race. 

Marriage  is  indeed,  as  many  ancient  peoples  believed,  a  free  and 
private  contract ;  but  not  one  that  concerns  two  people  alone,  to 
be  formed  and  dissolved  without  regard  to  any  law  but  that  of 
personal  happiness.  It  is  private  and  free  in  that  it  has  to  do  with 
those  mysterious  yearnings  of  the  inner  life  that  point  out  from  a 
world  of  friends  the  one  elect  and  solitary  mate,  and  thus  ordains 
selective  affection  as  the  supreme  guide  to  marriage. 

Marriage  is  a  social  arrangement  for  the  initiation  of  individ- 
uals into  the  social  order  and  the  old  social  control  of  its  vital 


247 

relationship  must  persist  in  forms  suited  to  modern  conditions; 
but  the  family  witnesses  more  than  an  external  order;  it  is  the 
tie  that  binds  one  generation  to  another  in  the  spiritual  unity  of 
the  race. 

Marriage  is  a  school  for  the  development  of  personal  life;  it 
must  hold  within  it  more  and  more  room  for  equal  rights,  mutual 
concessions  and  justly  balanced  activities;  but  the  family  is  more 
than  a  school  for  even  the  finest  individuation;  it  is  the  innermost 
temple  of  sacrificial  service  of  one  loved  one  for  another,  and  in 
its  companionship  is  wrought  out  that  sacred  alchemy  of  unselfish- 
ness by  means  of  which  "  they  that  lose  their  lives  shall  find  them." 

It  is  in  the  reincarnation  of  all  those  spiritual  ideals  of  the  race 
that  have  embodied  themselves  in  the  nobler  forms  of  family  life 
in  the  past  that  the  composite  social  order  of  this  modern  era  must 
find  its  own  true  and  consistent  ethical  laws  of  the  family,  of  mar- 
riage and  of  divorce.  This  is  the  vital  task  of  enlightened  and 
consecrated  leadership. 

THE   DUTY  OF   RELIGIOUS   LIBERALS   WITH   RE- 
SPECT TO  THE  CHILD 

MRS.    FREDERICK    NATHAN,    OF    NEW   YORK 

At  the  conventions  of  1904  and  1907  held  by  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  resolutions  were  passed  calling  upon  Christian 
employers  and  parents  to  make  the  labor  of  children  impossible 
in  this  Christian  country.  It  was  pointed  out  that  the  employ- 
ment of  children  in  factories  depresses  wages,  destroys  homes  and 
depreciates  the  human  stock.  Whatever  interferes  with  the 
proper  education  and  nurture  of  the  child  contradicts  the  best 
interests  of  the  nation. 

To  pass  such  a  resolution  was  indeed  an  admirable  thing,  but 
it  is  unfortunate  that  most  resolutions  of  this  kind  stop  with  the 
resolution.  At  all  congresses  and  conventions  we  hear  interesting 
addresses  —  some  of  them  —  and  have  the  privilege  of  participat- 
ing in  edifying  discussions,  but  too  often  the  conditions  which 
we  deprecate  continue  for  many  long  years,  while  we  decry  them, 
and  alas!  we  ourselves  are  often  unconsciously  the  abettors  of 
the  evil. 

How  many  of  us  present  to-day  may  be  wearing  or  using  ar- 


248. 

tides,  which  at  some  stage  of  their  manufacture,  have  involved 
the  labor  of  little  children?  Recent  statistics  tell  us  that  in 
Georgia  and  the  two  Carolinas,  the  centre  of  the  cotton  mill  in- 
dustry in  the  south,  one  cotton  mill  operative  out  of  three  has 
been  found  to  be  from  ten  to  fifteen  years  of  age.  For  these 
three  States,  nearly  one  thousand  children  under  ten  were  re- 
ported working  in  the  mills.  A  recent  investigation  of  over  half 
the  cotton  mills  of  Mississippi  showed  that  according  to  a  con- 
servative estimate  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  operatives  were 
under  fourteen.  An  investigation  made  a  short  time  ago  under 
friendly  auspices  revealed  the  fact  that  in  South  Carolina  mills, 
there  were  fifteen  hundred  children  employed  under  twelve  years 
of  age.  Only  last  year,  through  the  National  Child  Labor  Com- 
mittee, Mr.  Lewis  W.  Hine  (whose  photographs  are  so  well 
known)  visited  many  of  the  cotton  mills  in  North  and  South 
Carolina  and  took  photographs  of  the  many  little  ones  he  found 
working  there. 

It  is  almost  incredible  that  a  progressive  people  should  be  so 
blind  as  to  continue  maiming,  crippling,  stultifying  those  who  are 
to  be  the  fathers  and  mothers  of  the  next  generation.  Mr.  Hine 
found  a  very  large  number  of  children  at  work.  Even  one  little 
girl  of  seven  had  been  working  eighteen  months.  It  was  not  a 
violation  of  the  South  Carolina  law  for  an  orphan  of  five  and  a 
half  to  work  in  a  mill.  In  another  mill,  out  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty  employees  in  the  spinning  room,  it  was  intimated  that 
eightj^-five  were  under  the  age  of  sixteen.  Upon  examining  the 
children,  it  was  found  that  five  out  of  six  were  wholly  illiterate 
—  could  not  read  or  write. 

The  number  of  working  children,  instead  of  decreasing  as  civ- 
ilization advances,  has  increased ;  it  is  claimed  that  in  one  specific 
line  of  trade,  the  number  of  girls  working  has  increased  six  times 
in  amount  within  the  past  twenty  years.  In  some  factories  little 
girls  work  all  through  the  long  night  —  twelve  long  weary 
hours  —  amidst  the  roar  and  din  of  machinerj^  in  poorly  venti- 
lated rooms,  filled  with  the  lint  and  dust  from  the  looms,  which 
fill  the  lungs.  The  children  are  sometimes  given  a  strong  con- 
coction of  coffee  to  keep  them  awake;  they  are  often  so  exhausted 
when  the  night  shift  is  over,  that  they  are  seen  lying  on  benches 


249 

or  on  the  ground  near  the  factories,  too  tired  and  sleepy  to  go 
home  to  breakfast.  Of  the  children  between  the  ages  of  ten 
and  fourteen  employed  in  cotton  mills,  41.3  are  illiterate.  These 
are  white  children  born  of  American  parents. 

So  it  is  very  likely  that  those  of  us  who  wear  cotton  under- 
garments may  be  innocently  encouraging  child  labor.  Then 
again  the  cotton  undergarment  may  have  been  made  up  in  a 
sweat-shop  in  New  York  City.  There,  wages  are  so  low,  sea- 
sons so  short,  that  every  member  of  the  family  is  utilized.  The 
common  income  is  eked  out  even  by  the  pennies  the  little  children 
earn  in  pulling  out  the  bastings,  sewing  on  buttons,  or  carrying, 
on  their  heads  or  backs  heavy  loads  to  and  from  the  contractors. 
An  agent  of  the  Consumers'  League  found  in  an  investigation 
covering  only  a  few  blocks  in  New  York  City,  seventy-six 
children  nine  years  of  age  at  work,  forty-five  children  eight  years 
of  age,  and  ninety-two  children  not  over  seven  years  of  age  at 
work,  some  of  whom  were  only  four,  five  and  six  years  of  age. 

Dr.  Annie  Daniel,  who  for  many  years  has  been  connected 
with  the  New  York  Infirmary  for  Women  and  Children,  testi- 
fies that  she  has  found  babes  of  three  years  of  age  working  con- 
tinuously for  one  and  a  half  to  two  hours  at  a  time  in  their  tene- 
inent  homes.  She  even  found  one  boy  of  two  and  a  half  years 
old  helping  his  mother  and  four  other  children  under  twelve 
years  of  age  making  artificial  flowers.  Her  most  extraordinan^ 
experience  was  the  discovery  of  a  baby  of  one  and  a  half  years 
old  helping  to  make  passementerie.  Children  over  eight  years 
of  age  who  attend  school  help  with  the  work  at  home  after 
school  hours,  frequently  working  late  at  night,  and  on  Saturdays 
and  Sundays. 

As  Dr.  Daniel  has  well  pointed  out,  children  thus  permitted 
to  work  are  deprived  of  the  two  great  rights  which  parents  and 
the  state  are  bound  to  give  them :  health  and  an  education.  The 
children  work  in  rooms  where  the  atmosphere  Is  foul,  where  the 
light  is  so  poor  that  their  eyes  suffer  from  the  strain,  the  evil 
effect  enduring  all  their  lives.  Their  brains  are  not  sufficiently 
<leveloped  to  bear  fixed  attention  and  thus  enforced  concentration 
to  work  does  irreparable  damage.  A  member  of  the  Governing 
Board  of  the  Consumers'  League,  while  making  some  investiga- 


250 

tions  encountered  the  tragic  case  of  a  little  girl  only  seven  years 
old  who,  ever  since  the  baby  age  of  three,  had  been  compelled 
to  sit  day  after  day  with  little  legs  crossed,  pulling  out  bastings 
from  garments  in  the  course  of  manufacture.  So  contorted  had 
her  limbs  become  from  lack  of  use  that  she  had  lost  control  ove 
them  entirely,  and  it  became  necessary  to  send  her  to  a  hospital 
to  have  an  operation  performed.  The  pathos  of  the  situation 
is  increased  by  the  excuse  that  parents  offer  for  such  incidents: 
"  Either  the  children  must  work  to  death,  or  they  must  starve  to 
death."  In  one  parochial  school  of  seven  hundred  children, 
whose  parents  were  chiefly  Italian,  it  was  found  that  one  half 
of  them  worked  on  clothing  at  home  after  school  hours.  Ex- 
hausted from  the  lack  of  sleep,  they  often  fell  asleep  and  were 
considered  backward  or  stupid.  A  large  proportion  of  children 
who  work  at  home  are  between  the  ages  of  five  and  ten.  In  an 
investigation  made,  it  was  found  that  out  of  67  children  who  did 
not  attend  school,  40  were  violating  the  compulsory  education 
law  and  23  were  too  young  to  be  protected  by  its  provisions. 

Or  again,  w-e  may  purchase  our  cotton  garments  in  stores 
where  little  children  are  employed.  In  many  of  the  States,  chil- 
dren are  not  so  well  protected  as  they  are  at  present  in  my  State. 
There,  no  boy  or  girl  under  16  years  can  be  employed  after  7 
p.  m.  or  for  more  than  nine  hours  a  day  or  more  than  54  hours  a 
week.  Before  this  law  went  into  effect,  however,  we  used  to 
find  little  children  working  the  week  before  Christmas  until  half 
past  ten  and  eleven  o'clock  at  night,  twelve  and  a  half  long 
weary  hours  —  which  Dr.  Jacobi,  the  medical  authority,  says  is 
too  long  a  working  day  even  for  adult  women. 

There  is  only  one  practical  way  of  stopping  child  labor  — 
there  is  only  one  practical  way  of  overcoming  any  evil :  reject  its 
product  wholly.  When  our  ancestors  threw  the  tea  overboard, 
they  rejected  the  product  and  the  revolution  was  born ;  when 
the  North  would  no  longer  countenance  slaver\^  in  the  South,  it 
refused  to  buy  the  cotton,  sugar  and  rice  produced  by  slave 
labor.  So  if  earnest  men  and  women  really  desire  to  put  a  stop 
to  the  inhuman  practice  of  placing  on  the  immature  shoulders 
of  little  children  the  burdens  which  rightfully  belong  to  adults, 
we  must  all  refuse  to  purchase  the  product  of  their  baby  fingers. 


251 

The  supply  of  all  articles  is  regulated  by  the  demand.  Let 
the  demand  for  garments  made  or  finished  by  child  labor  cease. 
This  can  be  accomplished  by  the  public  insisting  upon  a  guarantee 
being  furnished,  such,  for  instance,  as  the  National  Consumers' 
League  provides  in  the  form  of  its  label,  which  is  only  given 
to  those  manufacturers  who  agree  in  writing  to  have  all  their 
goods  made  on  their  own  premises,  to  employ  no  children  under 
sixteen  years  of  age,  to  exact  no  night  work,  and  to  obey  the  State 
factory   laws. 

Unfortunately  our  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  the  public  has 
not  yet  met  a  sufficiently  wide  response,  to  warrant  the  placing 
of  the  label  on  any  garments  except  women's  white  underwear. 
Until  we  succeed  in  extending  the  scope  of  our  movement  to 
men's  garments  as  well,  they  can  only  prove  their  heroic  devotion 
to  the  cause  by  adopting  women's  wear! 

Another  way  that  conscientious  men  and  women  can  do  their 
share  in  the  broad  struggle  towards  abolishing  child  labor  in  our 
midst,  is  to  buy  stock  in  the  various  industries  where  children 
are  employed,  and  then  as  stock  holders  let  them  insist  upon  the 
more  humane  policy  of  eliminating  the  child  as  a  factor  in  in- 
creasing dividends  and  decreasing  payrolls. 

If  your  bank  accounts  will  not  enable  you  to  undertake 
so  extensive  a  measure,  there  is  a  smaller  expenditure  sug- 
gested by  the  National  Child  Labor  Committee  by  means 
of  which  each  of  you,  religious  and  liberal  men  and  women 
can  aid  in  saving  the  children ;  we  are  often  asked  by  prac- 
tical folk:  "What  can  be  done  when  a  child  of  twelve  or 
thirteen  must  work  in  order  to  increase  the  small  family  in- 
come,—  when,  for  instance,  the  father  is  dead  or  disabled  ? " 
Scholarships  have  been  established  by  the  Child  Labor  Com- 
mittees for  the  purpose  of  assisting  worthy  families  who  are 
deprived  through  legislation  of  the  labor  of  their  children. 
When  the  case,  after  a  thorough  investigation,  is  found  to  be 
worthy,  a  sum  of  money  equal  to  the  weekly  earning  capacity  of 
the  child  is  given  to  the  family,  so  that  the  child  can  be  kept 
at  school.  This  method,  as  a  matter  of  social  economy,  is  wiser 
than  the  former  method  of  permitting  the  child  to  work  and  earn 


252 

a  pittance,  and  then  contributing  to  the  support  of  the  family  after 
the  child  has  broken  down  physically,  mentally  or  morally. 

It  is  not  only  because  children  are  deprived  of  their  natural 
birthright  —  the  right  to  grow,  to  study  and  to  play,  when  put 
at  work  at  too  early  an  age,  it  is  also  because  they  are  apt  to  be 
ruined  physically  as  well  as  spiritually. 

Children  are  employed  in  large  numbers  in  our  canneries.  We 
not  only  wear  garments  made  by  little  children,  but  we  eat  food 
prepared  by  them.  It  is  considered  most  important  that  the  per- 
ishable goods  should  not  spoil,  but  there  seems  to  be  no  compunc- 
tion about  ruining  the  constitutions  of  frail  children.  Conscien- 
tious investigators  report  that  children  of  all  ages  —  some  mere 
babies  of  four  —  go  out  from  the  cities  in  the  vicinity  of  the  can- 
neries, during  the  canning  season,  and  work  from  seven  in  the 
morning  until  nine  and  ten  at  night,  snatching  only  a  few  mo- 
ments from  their  work,  to  eat.  The  mothers  have  no  time  to 
prepare  meals  and  the  children  must  be  contented  with  hunks 
of  bread ;  they  are  often  shaken  awake  to  work  w^earily  on  when 
they  have  dozed  over  their  evening  tasks.  Sometimes  they  are 
compelled  to  stand  all  day  at  these  tasks  and  often  the  neighbor- 
ing machinery  is  unguarded. 

The  sheds  are  not  considered  technically  as  part  of  the  factory, 
and  therefore,  in  my  State  child  labor  laws  are  violated  (in  the 
spirit,  if  not  the  letter)  with  impunity.  For  instance:  One 
woman  who  worked  from  five  a.  m.  until  nine  thirty  p.  m.  had 
her  two  little  girls  aged  seven  and  nine  with  her  and  they 
worked  the  same  length  of  time,  although  they  complained  of 
being  tired  and  said  their  limbs  ached.  The  New  York  Factory 
Inspector  reports  that  during  an  investigation  made  last  August, 
in  52  canneries  593  children  under  14  years  of  age  w-ere  found  at 
work  in  sheds,  and  123  of  them  were  less  than  10  years  old. 
Even  more  startling  is  the  danger  that  little  ones  will  be  crushed, 
actually  torn  to  pieces  by  the  huge  machinery  around  which  they 
work.  In  New  York  State  alone,  during  the  year  1907,  there 
were  one  hundred  and  eleven  victims  of  industrial  accidents  to 
children  under  sixteen.  This  may  not  seem  an  extraordinarily 
large  number  from  the  statistician's  point  of  view,  but  when  we 
consider    that    it   means   one    hundred    and    eleven    crippled    and 


253 

maimed  human  beings,  their  lives  wrecked,  their  usefulness  and 
happiness  at  an  end,  their  mothers'  hearts  wrung,  then  we  realize 
the  enormity  of  the  crime. 

In  Indiana  there  are  seventy-five  different  industries  employ- 
ing child  labor.  Accidents  are  so  common  that  in  one  town  a 
grocer  remarked  quite  casually  that  there  were  a  dozen  small 
boys  in  his  vicinity  who  had  been  crippled  in  one  way  or  another 
in  the  mills.  **  Every  little  while,"  said  he,  "  some  one  is  hurt. 
Last  week  a  boy  had  a  hand  entirely  taken  off." 

Among  other  accidents  authoritatively  reported  may  be  men- 
tioned :  A  boy  twelve  years  old  working  in  a  coal  breaker  had  his 
arm  torn  from  his  shoulder  by  being  caught  in  some  machinery. 
He  received  no  monetary  compensation  and  was  merely  dismissed. 
A  little  girl  of  seven  had  three  fingers  torn  from  her  hand  by  the 
relentless  machinery  in  a  cotton  mill.  A  young  boy  working  in 
a  stock  yard  was  put  at  work  to  saw  bones  at  an  unguarded  ma- 
chine where  his  father  had  just  had  his  hand  cut  off.  These  are 
t^'pical  cases  found  in  our  country  which  has  become  notorious 
of  late  for  the  frequency  of  preventable  accidents. 

The  Dangerous  Trades  Bill  which  has  just  passed  the  New 
York  Legislature  and  which  now  awaits  the  Governor's  signa- 
ture is  the  greatest  gain  in  New  York  child  Labor  Legislation 
obtained  in  several  years.  It  absolutely  prohibits  the  employ- 
ment of  children  under  i6  years  of  age  at  dangerous  machiner}% 
The  new  law  will  specify  by  name  a  long  list  of  prohibited  occu- 
pations, which  are  dangerous  on  account  of  rapidly  moving  or 
sharp  edged  machinery  or  on  account  of  poisonous  fumes.* 

One  of  the  worst  features  of  child  labor  is  to  be  found  in  the 
breakers  in  connection  with  the  coal  mines.  Official  reports  re- 
cord 10,006  boys  employed  under  16  years  of  age  in  Pennsyl- 
vania's mines  and  breakers.  Not  only  do  they  grow  up  in  dense 
ignorance,  but  thrown  as  they  are  among  coarse,  hardened,  vicious 
men,  in  the  midst  of  an  environment  that  in  more  than  one  way, 
is  black  and  sooty,  they  in  turn  become  hardened  and  vicious 
early  in  life. 

It  is  estimated  that  there  are  seven  thousand  children  employed 
in  the  manufacture  of  tobacco.     Any  one  visiting  a  cigar  factory 

*  Since  this  article  was  written,  the  Governor  has  signed  the  Bill  and 
the  Law  goes  into  efifect  in  October,  1909. 


254 

realizes  how  strong  and  pungent  are  the  fumes,  and  how  readily 
the  throat  contracts  and  becomes  dry  and  irritated.  In  winding 
tobacco  about  cigars,  most  of  the  workers  find  it  quicker  to  use 
their  teeth  than  to  use  the  cutter  on  their  tables,  so  that  it  is 
not  unusual  to  find  immature  children  having  their  systems  poi- 
soned by  nicotine. 

In  the  glass  industry  it  is  estimated  that  there  are  sixty-four 
hundred  children  at  work,  hundreds  of  them  working  all  night 
long.  In  Pennsylvania  alone  —  according  to  the  Factory  In- 
spector's report  —  there  are  3,000,  or  15  1-2  per  cent,  of  all  em- 
ployees in  the  glass  blowing  factories,  under  sixteen  years  of  age. 
According  to  statistics  of  1905,  nearly  10  per  cent,  of  all  em- 
ployees in  Pennsylvania  were  under  16  years  of  age.  (State  Bu- 
reau of  Industrial  Statistics.)  In  modern  industries  in  our  coun- 
try, glass-making  ranks  third  among  the  largest  employers  of  chil- 
dren, in  proportion  to  the  number  of  adult  employees,  spinning, 
a  process  of  silk  manufacture,  and  the  cotton  industry  alone  su- 
perseding it.  If  the  labor  demanded  of  the  children  were  for 
the  daylight  hours  only,  there  might  not  be  such  serious  objec- 
tions, but  the  juggernaut  of  the  trade  demands  night  work.  It 
is  estimated  on  the  basis  of  the  census  report  of  1905,  there  were 
twelve  hundred  and  seventy-one  boys  under  sixteen  years  of  age 
doing  night  work  in  glass  factories  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 
There  is  additional  menace  to  the  physical  health  of  the  children 
from  the  fact  that  some  parts  of  the  factories  are  heated  by  the 
furnaces  to  an  abnormal  degree  and  boys  run  from  such  parts  to 
where  the  temperature  is  many  degrees  lower,  or  often  they  run 
out  of  a  cold  night  for  a  whiff  of  fresh  air,  and  get  pneumonia 
in  consequence.  By  alternating, —  working  one  week  by  day  and 
one  week  by  night  —  they  acquire  habits  of  irregularity  which 
lead  to  moral  as  well  as  physical  deterioration. 

While  it  is  estimated  that  there  are  20,000  children  under 
twelve  years  of  age  working  in  Southern  mills,  it  is  recorded  in 
the  United  States  census  of  1900  that  there  were  then  more  chil- 
dren under  sixteen  working  in  Pennsylvania  mills  than  in  all  of 
the  combined  Southern  Sates.  "  If  Pennsylvania's  working  chil- 
dren were  to  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder,  with  no  space  between 
them,    the    line    would    extend    twenty-two    miles!  "     In    many 


255 

States  there  are  no  official  records,  no  adequate  facilities  upon 
which  to  base  statistics,  so  that  it  is  difficult  to  present  accurate 
figures.  That  is  one  reason  why  a  National  Children's  Bureau 
should  be  established  in  Washington,  so  that  we  may  have  some 
means  of  ascertaining  reliable  data  concerning  the  labor  of  chil- 
dren in  our  country. 

While  we  are  striving  to  get  better  legislation  in  our  various 
States  for  the  protection  of  our  children  in  factories  and  stores, 
there  are  many  occupations  in  which  very  young  children  are  em- 
ployed to  which  the  laws  do  not  usually  extend.  Among  these 
may  be  included:  messenger  and  telegraph  boys  (surrounded  as 
they  are  by  special  temptations),  boys  in  bowling  alleys,  in  slate 
and  stone  quarries,  in  brick  yards  and  slaughter  houses,  in  black- 
smith shops  and  barber  shops,  in  business  offices  of  various  kinds, 
on  huckster  wagons  and  at  boot  black  stands.  My  attention  has 
been  called  in  my  city  to  one  little  boy  of  eleven,  who  gets  up 
at  3  a.  m.  to  turn  out  the  street  lamps  in  an  outlying  district. 
It  is  claimed  that  the  law  does  not  apply  to  him.  Messenger 
boys,  instead  of  receiving  a  weekly  wage,  are  paid  by  the  piece, 
and  this  is  often  the  cause  of  their  downfall.  Receiving  irregu- 
lar amounts  makes  them  spend  irregularly,  and  they  learn  to  de- 
ceive their  parents  as  to  the  actual  amount  they  earn,  keeping 
back  small  sums  for  illegitimate  amusement,  such  as  gambling, 
or  for  low  picture  shows.  They  also  learn  to  depend  upon  tips 
and  prefer  to  be  sent  to  evil  resorts  because  of  their  likelihood 
of  getting  a  larger  fee. 

In  consideration  of  all  these  facts,  I  maintain  that  far  better 
than  passing  resolutions  at  conventions,  would  be  the  formation 
of  committees  to  urge  necessary  legislation  in  States  where  chil- 
dren are  not  sufficiently  protected,  and  to  insist  upon  rigid  en- 
forcement of  the  laws  when  laws  have  already  been  passed  re- 
stricting child   labor. 

In  my  own  State,  where  we  have  a  competent  and  conscientious 
Commissioner  of  Labor,  there  were  found  during  1908  three  hun- 
dred and  five  children  under  fourteen  years  of  age  illegally  at 
work.  Nearly  $4,500  in  fines  were  collected  from  employers 
prosecuted    for   illegally   employing  children    during    1908.     The 


256 

Commissioner  of  Labor  reports  having  found  in  New  York  State 
1,633  children  illegally  employed,  and  these  figures  do  not  include 
those  found  in  stores. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  a  Congress  like  this  should  not  only 
set  its  seal  of  disapproval  against  the  whole  system  of  child  labor, 
but  that  each  clergyman  and  each  member  should  individually 
discountenance  such  practice.  It  should  be  considered  just  as 
much  of  a  stigma  in  the  business  world  to  be  caught  illegally 
employing  little  children  as  it  would  be  to  be  caught  selling  short 
weight  to  customers  or  returning  them  short  change. 

The  clergymen, —  the  religious  leaders  of  our  country  —  can 
do  much  to  bring  about  such  a  strong  public  sentiment  as  will 
revolutionize  our  present  industrial  system,  which  overworks 
minors  and  leaves  an  army  of  adults  unemployed. 

The  National  Child  Labor  Committee  has  asked  all  clergymen 
to  set  apart  the  last  Sunday  in  January  of  each  year  as  "  Child 
Labor  Sunday,"  when  sermons  on  this  text  are  to  be  preached. 
Last  year  2,000  clerg^^men  (four  times  as  many  as  the  year  be- 
fore) responded  to  the  appeal,  writing  for  literature.  If  any 
clergyman  present  will  cooperate  in  this  manner,  the  Child  Labor 
Committee  will  be  happy  to  receive  their  names,  and  supply  them 
with  information. 

We  boast  as  a  nation,  of  our  great  commerce;  we  feel  a  sense 
of  pride  when  we  consider  that  we  manufacture  t\vo  billion  dol- 
lars' worth  of  products  a  year.  But  when  we  realize  that  about 
two  million  little  children  are  permitted  to  be  engaged  in  those 
manufactures,  we  feel  rather  like  bowing  our  heads  with  shame 
and  exclaiming  with  Emerson:  "Give  us  worse  cotton,  but  give 
us  better  men." 

THE    DUTY    OF    RELIGIOUS    LIBER-4LS    TOWARD 
THE  TEMPERANCE  REFORM 

WILSON    S.    DOAN,   OF   INDIANAPOLIS 

There  has  been  organized  opposition  to  the  liquor  traffic  in 
America  for  more  than  a  century.  By  the  fourth  generation  the 
subject  necessarily  is  threadbare,  unattractive,  and  sometimes  re- 
pulsive.    "  Save  me  from  my  friends  "  may  well  be  the  cry  of 


257 

the  temperance  force  to-day.  No  reform  ever  so  suffered  at  the 
hands  of  its  friends.  On  the  one  hand  a  wild  fanaticism  has 
often  characterized  its  adherents.  Its  cause  has  been  often  es- 
poused by  those  ^^"ho  were  misinformed  as  to  facts,  and  illogical 
as  to  conclusions;  men  and  women  who  spend  their  time  deal- 
ing with  abstract  propositions  rather  than  common-place  condi- 
tions. And  at  times  this  warfare  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  an 
army  of  mercenary  soldiers  who  are  more  interested  in  the  stipends 
of  the  warfare  than  in  the  cause  of  humanity;  an  army  of  men 
and  \\omen  who  are  enlisted  in  the  battle  for  a  livelihood  because 
of  their  inefficiency  to  find  any  other  opening.  This  is  one  proxi- 
mate cause  of  that  great  host  that  stands  like  a  stone  wall  of  in- 
difference as  to  this  question.  Be  no  fanatic.  We  need  our  bet- 
ter judgment.  The  fanatical  soldier's  aim  is  bad.  Keep  cool. 
Shoot  straight. 

Do  not  be  a  mercenary  reformer.  Such  a  reformer  always 
needs  to  be  reformed ;  and  to  use  the  language  of  the  street,  "  put 
your  hands  upon  your  pocket-books,"  and  not  into  them,  when  he 
is  near. 

Neither  stand  like  a  statue  unmoved  and  indifferent  in  the  very 
midst  of  one  of  the  greatest  moral  battles  of  the  age.  Between 
the  restless  sea  of  fanaticism  and  the  rocky  cliffs  of  indifference 
and  opposition  there  is  a  plain  path  for  every  patriotic  citizen. 
The  question  is  m.any-sided.  It  has  a  moral,  a  civic,  an  educa- 
tional, an  economic,  a  political,  a  judicial,  a  medical  and  an  in- 
dustrial side.  Most  of  these  must  in  this  discussion  be  eliminated. 
The  question  of  sumptuary  legislation,  in  so  far  as  it  affects  the 
citizen's  inherent  right  to  eat  and  drink  what  he  pleases,  must 
also  be  eliminated.  The  question  of  personal  libert}'^  must  not 
be  attempted  to  be  moved  from  the  Holy  of  Holies  where  the 
Creator  placed  it.  Leave  that  question  between  man  and  his 
own  conscience.  But  there  is  a  question  which  is  of  paramount 
importance  in  this  discussion,  and  that  is,  what  is  the  character 
of  the  saloon  as  an  institution,  and  what  is  its  effect  upon  society, 
and  what  is  your  duty  toward  it?  In  determining  the  question 
of  the  character  of  the  saloon  let  us  be  guided  by  those  rules  of 
evidence  which  would  guide  us  in  determining  any  other  im- 
portant question.     A  witness   to  be  most  effective  must  be  un- 


258 

prejudiced.  He  must  have  no  interest  in  the  case  one  way  or 
the  other,  and  the  weight  of  his  testimony  is  to  be  governed  by 
his  opportunity  to  see  and  to  know  the  things  about  which  he  is 
testifying.  With  this  well  known  rule  in  mind  let  us  seek  evi- 
dence as  to  the  character  of  the  salocn  and  its  effect  upon  society. 
Let  us  have  the  best  evidence.  So  on  the  ground  of  prejudice, 
we  will  eliminate  the  professional  temperance  reformer,  for  he 
may  well  bear  the  name  of  crank,  keeping  in  mind  the  well 
known  definition  that  a  crank  is  a  man  who  sees  one  thing  very 
clearly  but  does  not  see  it  in  its  relation  to  other  things.  So, 
however  valuable  his  testimony  may  be  as  to  the  character  of  the 
saloon,  for  the  purpose  of  this  discussion  we  shall  set  it  aside. 

Shall  we  take  the  testimony  of  the  brewer,  the  saloon-keeper 
and  the  bartender?  They  do  not  come  within  the  purview  of  the 
best  and  most  weighty  evidence.  They  are  parties  to  the  case  and 
are  certainly  financially  interested  in  the  final  outcome.  So  we 
shall  set  them  aside  and  seek  more  disinterested  testimony. 

Shall  we  take  the  business  man?  He  is  busy  in  the  counting 
room,  the  office  and  the  store.  He  has  never  had  an  opportunity 
to  know  much  of  the  effects  of  this  institution,  of  this  business 
and  its  character.  Ask  him  do  you  know  the  saloon  business,  and 
you  will  receive  the  answer  at  once,  I  know  nothing  of  it.  So  for 
want  of  knowledge  and  lack  of  opportunity  to  know  and  under- 
stand the  things  about  which  he  is  testif^ang  we  shall  set  him 
aside  as  a  witness. 

Shall  we  ask  the  professional  politician  and  the  ward-heeler? 
The  saloon  is  too  often  his  ally,  and  the  bar  the  marshalling 
ground  of  his  cohorts.  Thus  personally  interested  we  will  set 
him  aside. 

Shall  we  ask  the  Clergy?  With  all  due  deference  to  the  per- 
sonnel of  many  of  this  audience  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Clergy 
know  the  saloon  business,  and  until  they  do  thej'^  are  not  compe- 
tent to  testify.  I  think  they  will  admit  that  their  testimony  is  for 
the  most  part  hear-say,  and  therefore  objectionable. 

But  there  is  a  witness  whose  opportunit}'^  of  knowledge  is  un- 
surpassed, intelligent  and  unprejudiced.  A  witness  who  has  had 
jTars  of  training  to  make  his  words  speak  the  truth  without  fear 
or  failure.     A  witness  who  has  had,  as  no  other  witness  has,  an 


^  259 

opportunity  to  see  and  know  the  character  of  the  saloon,  its  effect 
upon  human  society,  its  influence,  its  power,  not  only  upon  the 
individual,  but  upon  the  community  and  the  State.  This  witness 
is  the  Courts.  Our  Courts  are  not  fanatics.  They  are  not  prej- 
udiced.    They  are  supposed  to  be  disinterested. 

They  have  had  better  opportunity  to  know  than  any  one  else, 
in  view  of  the  great  amount  of  litigation  which  the  licensed  sa- 
loon has  caused  in  every  State  in  the  Union. 

Let  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  answer  the  ques- 
tion, "  what  is  the  character  of  the  saloon  and  its  effect  upon  soci- 
ety?" A  united  bench,  speaking  through  Justice  Brewer,  says: 
"  By  the  general  concurrence  of  opinion  of  every  civilized  and 
Christian  Community  there  are  few  sources  of  crime  and  misery 
to  society  equal  to  the  dramshop  where  intoxicating  liquors  in 
small  quantities  to  he  drank  at  the  time  are  sold  indiscriminately 
to  all  persons  applying.  The  statistics  of  every  State  show  a 
greater  amount  of  crime  and  misery  attributable  to  the  use  of  ar- 
dent spirits  obtained  at  these  retail  liquor  saloons  than  to  any 
other  source." 

I  submit  that  the  Supreme  Court  and  Justice  Brewer  are  wit- 
nesses whose  testimony  carries  with  it  much  weight. 

Let  the  Supreme  Court  of  Kansas  answer  the  same  question; 
and  that  Court  says:  "Probably  no  greater  source  of  crime  and 
sorrow  has  ever  existed  than  the  social  drinking  saloon.  It  has 
caused  more  drunkenness  and  made  more  drunkards  than  all  other 
causes  combined,  and  drunkenness  is  a  pernicious  source  of  all 
kinds  of  crime  and  sorrow.  It  is  a  Pandora's  box  sending  forth 
innumerable  ills  and  woes,  shame  and  disgrace,  indigence,  poverty 
and  want  —  social  happiness  destroyed,  domestic  broils  and  bick- 
erings engendered,  social  ties  sundered,  homes  made  desolate,  fami- 
lies scattered,  sin,  crime  and  untold  sorrows;  not  even  hope  left, 
but  everything  lost.  An  everlasting  farewell  to  all  true  happi- 
ness and  to  all  the  nobler  aspirations  rightfully  belonging  to  every 
true  and  virtuous  human  being." 

Let  the  Supreme  Court  of  Iowa  answer  the  same  question,  and 
that  Court  says:  "There  is  no  statistical  or  economical  proposi- 
tion better  established,  not  one  to  which  a  more  general  assent 
is  given  by  the  leading  and  intelligent  minds  than  this,  that  the 


26o 

use  of  intoxicating  liquors  as  a  drink  is  the  cause  of  more  want, 
pauperism,  suffering,  crime  and  public  expense  than  any  other 
cause;  and  perhaps  it  should  be  said  than  all  other  causes  com- 
bined. Every  State  applies  the  most  stringent  legal  power  to  lot- 
teries, gambling,  keeping  gambling  houses  and  implements,  and 
to  debauchery  and  obscenity,  and  no  one  questions  the  right  and 
justice  of  it;  and  yet  how  small  the  weight  of  woe  produced 
by  these  united  when  compared  with  that  which  is  created  by  the 
use  of  intoxicating  drinks  alone." 

Says  the  Supreme  Court  of  Missouri:  "  It  is  a  business  which 
naturally  breeds  disorder." 

Says  the  Supreme  Court  of  Indiana:  "That  it  produces  four- 
fifths  to  nine-tenths  of  all  the  crime  committed  is  the  united  testi- 
mony of  those  judges,  prison  keepers,  sheriffs  and  others  engaged 
in  the  administration  of  the  criminal  law  who  have  investigated 
the  subject." 

Says  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois:  "  Saloons  demoralize  the 
community,  foster  vice,  produce  crime  and  beggary,  want  and 
misery." 

This  is  the  estimate  placed  upon  the  saloon  by  the  Courts  of 
final  appeal  in  our  land.  As  loyal  American  citizens  we  must 
accept  these  decisions  as  a  fair  statement  of  the  law  of  the  case. 
This  then  is  a  judicial  finding  as  to  the  character  of  the  saloon 
as  an  institution. 

By  the  side  of  this  proposition  of  law  let  us  consider  a  second 
proposition.  Has  it  not  already  occurred  to  you  to  ask  the  ques- 
tion, "What  is  a  public  nuisance?"  A  public  nuisance  has  been 
defined  to  be  any  occupation  that  tampers  with  public  morals,  that 
tends  to  idleness,  that  is  destructive  of  public  health,  or  that  pro- 
motes crime  and  disorder.  And  this  definition  of  a  public  nui- 
sance is  given  by  the  same  Courts  of  final  appeal  from  which  we 
have  been  quoting  as  to  the  character  of  the  saloon.  Every  char- 
acterization of  the  saloon  by  these  Courts  places  it  within  the 
definition  of  a  public  nuisance.  These  Courts  are  either  wrong 
in  their  characterization  of  the  saloon,  or  for  a  century  we  have 
erred  in  our  definitions  of  a  public  nuisance. 

Now  let  us  re-state  our  question.     In  so  far  as  it  pertains  to 


26l 

the  saloon,  what  Is  the  duty  of  religious  liberals  toward  a  public 
nuisance?  A  public  nuisance  is  a  public  wrong.  Is  our  attitude 
toward  wrong  one  of  permission  or  one  of  prohibition?  Ten  years 
before  the  war  William  H.  Seward  said :  "  Slavery  is  wrong  and 
there  is  but  one  way  to  right  it,  and  that  is  to  abolish  it."  If  the 
saloon  is  what  the  Courts  say  it  is,  it  is  wrong  and  there  is  but 
one  way  to  right  it,  and  that  is  to  prohibit  it.  The  primary  func- 
tion of  the  State  is  for  the  protection  of  society,  and  that  State  fails 
to  do  its  duty  in  the  protection  of  society  that  for  a  price  permits  a 
wrong.  Call  this  fanaticism  if  you  must.  If  it  be,  it  is  a  fanati- 
cism that  robs  penitentiaries  of  their  inmates,  that  robs  divorce 
courts  of  their  defendants,  that  clears  the  dockets  of  Police  Courts 
as  no  other  one  can  do  —  a  fanaticism  that  saves  the  wages,  the 
health,  the  morals  of  the  laboring  man.  But  if  the  saloon  is  to  be 
driven  out,  how  shall  we  do  it.  Opinions  and  theories  are  com- 
mon-place things.  This  age  demands  results.  Resolutions  of 
Churches,  conventions  and  party  platforms  may  be  urging  decla- 
rations of  war,  but  in  the  South  and  Middle  West  we  are  be- 
yond the  declaratory  stage.  The  war  has  already  begun,  and  we 
are  fighting  the  battles  now;  and  he  who  is  simply  talking  of  the 
battles  he  proposes  to  fight  belongs  to  the  Rip  Van  Winkle  age. 
Thirty-five  years  of  agitation  in  most  of  the  States  demonstrates 
the  fact  that  the  immediate  demands  for  State-wide  prohibition 
have  not  been  productive  of  definite  results  in  many  common- 
wealths. General  Grant  never  would  have  fought  his  Appomat- 
tox had  it  not  been  for  Lookout  Mountain,  Vicksburg  and  Sher- 
man's march  to  the  sea.  The  last  five  years  have  demonstrated 
that  the  most  effective  warfare  against  the  saloon  is  along  the  line 
of  Local  Option.  The  idea  of  Local  Option  has  been  the  road  to 
State-wide  prohibition  in  the  South,  and  it  has  closed  the  doors  of 
more  saloons  in  America  than  all  other  methods  combined.  The 
prohibition  of  such  an  institution  as  the  saloon  should  know  no  ter- 
ritorial limitations.  Do  not  say  the  opposition  shall  be  State-wide 
or  not  at  all ;  that  it  shall  be  as  wide  as  the  Nation  or  not  at  all. 
No  more  illogical  position  could  well  be  taken.  But  oppose  the  sa- 
loon everjrwhere  —  the  single  saloon,  the  saloon  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, in  the  precinct,  in  the  ward,  in  the  township,  in  the  Munici- 


262 

pality,  in  the  county,  in  the  State,  and  in  the  Nation.  Let  us  see 
what  weapons  have  been  effective,  measured  by  the  standard  of 
results  rather  than  the  standard  of  theories. 

Georgia. — In  Georgia  a  Local  Option  law  drove  the  saloons 
out  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  counties  in  a  total  number 
of  one  hundred  and  forty-six  counties,  and  in  1907  led  to  a  State- 
wide prohibitory  law.  It  was  the  campaign  in  125  counties,  and 
the  hard  fought  battles  in  many  of  them,  that  not  only  drove  the 
saloon  from  these  respective  counties,  but  ultimately  gave  Georgia 
a  prohibitory  law. 

Alabama. —  Local  option  in  Alabama  prior  to  the  enactment  of 
a  prohibitory  State  law  had  driven  out  the  saloons  from  50  coun- 
ties, out  of  67.  When  they  reached  that  point  in  the  progress  of 
the  warfare  it  was  easy  for  50  counties  to  say  to  17,  "we  will 
make  the  matter  State-wide." 

Arkansas. —  In  Arkansas  prior  to  the  prohibitory  legislation  of 
I909)  59  out  of  79  counties  were  dry,  and  there  were  left  only 
317  saloons  in  the  whole  State. 

Mississippi. —  In  Mississippi  prior  to  the  State  Prohibitory  Law 
in  1908,  69  counties  out  of  76  had  banished  the  saloon.  This  was 
the  road  that  led  Mississippi  to  prohibition. 

Indiana. —  Indiana  has  92  counties,  and  since  January,  1909,  48 
counties  have  held  Local  Option  elections  and  driven  out  the  sa- 
loon in  45  of  them ;  making  a  total  of  64  dry  counties  within 
the  State. 

Ohio. —  In  Ohio  the  first  county  local  option  w^as  held  Septem- 
ber 30,  1908.  Ohio  has  88  counties,  and  to-day,  seven  months 
afterwards,  the  saloon  has  been  driven  out  of  63  counties  in  the 
State. 

Tennessee. —  Tennessee  has  92  counties,  and  they  have  driven 
the  saloon  out  of  all  except  4  counties  in  the  State.  There  are 
only  five  cities  in  the  State  where  intoxicating  liquors  as  a  bev- 
erage can  be  obtained. 

Michigan. —  Within  the  last  month  19  counties  in  Michigan, 
out  of  21,  drove  out  the  saloon. 

These  are  the  battles  fought  and  victories  won.  In  view  of 
these  results  local  option  elections  at  this  time  afford  the  most 
effective  warfare  that  can  be  waged  against  the  saloon.     The  most 


263 

ardent  advocate  of  State-wide  prohibition  will  find  in  this  the 
school-master  to  bring  us  to  his  ideal. 

At  the  last  general  election  the  brewers  in  Indiana  placed  upon 
almost  every  billboard  in  the  State  a  placard  headed  with  these 
words  "  Local  Option  Means  Prohibition ;"  and  in  the  Hoosier 
State  we  are  seeing  to  it  that  the  brewers'  prophecy  is  being  ful- 
filled, but  we  are  not  alone.  From  the  South  and  the  West  and 
the  North,  and  Ohio  on  the  East,  the  morning  paper  tells  of  the 
tide  rising  higher;  and  the  storm  will  e're  long  strike  the  staid 
old  citadel  of  the  con^ncn wealth  of  Pennsylvania. 

Our  fathers  builded  nobly  in  the  past.  Independence,  toler- 
ance and  liberty  they  handed  dovrn  to  you  and  me  as  heirlooms. 
They  smote  the  rock  of  education  in  the  desert  of  ignorance,  and 
the  waters  of  knowlc.'ge  flowed  forth  free  to  the  humblest  child. 
They  builded  hospitals  where  the  unfortunate  received  the  high- 
est skill  and  tenderest  care;  they  broke  the  chains  that  bound  a 
race  and  set  them  free ;  they  penetrated  the  forest  of  the  Middle 
West,  and  where  a  century  ago  the  Indian  wigwams  stood,  the 
modern  office  building  now  pierces  the  sky.  With  prairie  schooner 
they  pressed  their  way  onto  the  western  plains  and  made  of  them 
the  granaries  of  the  world.  They  reached  the  foot  of  the  West- 
ern Mountains,  and  cried  "  open  sesame  "  to  them,  and  the  doors 
of  the  chambers  of  silver  and  gold  swung  open.     But 

"  Our  fathers  to  their  graves  have  gone, 
Their  battles  past  and  victories  won, 
But  sterner  trials  wait  the  race 
That  rises  in  their  honored  place." 

As  lovers  of  the  home,  the  cities,  the  States,  the  churches,  the 
colleges  and  the  industries,  they  have  given  to  us  men  of  conscience 
and  men  of  heart. 

The  cry  comes, 

To  arms,  to  arms,  th^  battle  cry, 

Save  the   Nation   lest   it   difc, 

Drive   from   thy   shore  this  curse  and  woe, 

And  write  in  thy  Statutes  saloons  must  go. 


264 


TEMPERANCE  AND  PROHIBITION 

DR.    PEDRO    ILGEN,    PASTOR,    OF   THE    GERMAN    EVANGELICAL    PROT- 
ESTANT  CHURCH    OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT,    ST.    LOUIS,    MO. 

From  the  standpoint  of  a  Christian  minister  I  intend  to  speak 
to  you  on  the  issue  now  before  the  citizens  of  nearly  every  State, 
and  in  an  impassionate  spirit,  I  wish  to  voice  the  sentiment  of 
all  liberty-loving  citizens  of  this  country  against  the  fanaticism 
of  prohibition  of  any  kind,  and  give  the  password  for  common 
sense,  freedom,  progression  and  mutual  toleration.  The  latter 
are, —  does  it  need  any  proof?  —  the  foundation  of  peaceful  civil 
development  and  at  the  same  time  of  a  progressive  state  and  na- 
tion, while  statutary  prohibition,  intolerance  and  fanaticism  are 
the  stepping  stones  to  slavery,  revolution  and  ruin.  History  as 
such  is  one  continued  proof,  is  a  self-repeating  verification  of  my 
statement. 

If  ever  an  attempt  has  been  made  —  I  call  it  a  criminal  at- 
tempt —  to  rob  man  of  his  God-given  rights,  rights  acknowledged 
and  sanctified  by  all  religions  of  a  free  race,  rights  guaranteed 
by  the  constitutions  of  all  free  and  progressive  nations,  it  has  been 
made  by  the  prohibition  party  without  any  difference  of  creeds, 
who  have  not  even  grasped  the  first  principle  of  the  moral  teach- 
ings of  the  great  master  and  friend  of  humanity:  "  Love  is  the  ful- 
fillment of  the  law!  "  Just  imagine,  my  friends,  what  would 
happen  to  our  civil  and  national,  to  our  commercial  life,  should 
our  present  fight  end  with  the  victory  of  followers  of  principles 
that  identify  the  Tzar  of  Russia  and  his  famous  methods  to  crush 
individuality,  freedom  of  conscience  and  freedom  of  speech,  and 
lay  in  chains  the  honest  convictions  of  what  we  call  a  free  Ameri- 
can citizen?  Would  it  not  paralyze  the  entire  organism  of  our 
American  republic,  would  it  not  destroy  all  that  has  been  built 
up  on  this  very  foundation  that  marks  the  American  republican 
principle  "  Man  is  free  "  as  the  "  perpetuum  mobile  "  of  our  prog- 
ress? 

Prohibition  has  carried  the  torch  of  a  most  bitter  and  passion- 
ate fight  not  only  into  the  centres  of  commerce  and  of  interna- 
tional exchange,  no  even  the  other\vise  peaceful  villages  and  cities 


265 

of  our  country  have  been  turned  into  regular  battlefields.  The 
entire  nation  has  become  like  a  house  divided  in  itself.  Even  the 
churches,  the  places  of  worship  dedicated  to  the  cause  of  peace, 
have  been  made  —  to  use  the  Saviour's  words, — "  dens  of  mur- 
der." No  matter  how  harmoniously  the  church  bells  may  ring 
and  how  sweetly  tones  of  the  gospel  hymns  may  float  through  the 
silence  of  the  Sabbath, —  He,  whose  life  was  love  and  whose  aim 
was  peace,  has  had  to  flee  before  the  hatred  and  passionate  ire  of 
his  modern  disciples. 

There  He  stands  before  the  church  doors  of  the  modern  Phari- 
sees and  while  covering  his  face  with  his  hands,  He  asks:  "Are 
these  the  teachers  of  my  gospel,  the  gospel  of  love  and  joy,  the 
gospel  of  self-directed  morality  and  goodness?  It  is  the  teaching 
of  hypocrisy  that  you  have  expounded  amongst  my  brethren  and 
the  "  sermon  on  the  mount  "  you  have  shut  up  in  the  vaults  of 
your  edifices.  I  gave  you  the  gospel  of  Christian  libertj^  of  the 
noble  deed,  and  you  teach  the  gospel  of  a  narrow,  intolerant  creed  ? 
In  place  of  the  freedom  of  the  gospel  and  the  beauty  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  in  the  human  heart  j^ou  have  set  rules  and  regula- 
tions of  a  state  prison,  with  all  the  consequences  of  secret  drunken- 
ness and  secret  crime. 

/  told  you:  "  Man  has  not  been  made  for  the  sake  of  the  Sab- 
bath, but  the  Sabbath  has  been  made  for  man's  sake!  "  You  con- 
demn everybody,  even  the  laborer,  who  after  a  week  of  strenu- 
ous work  and  an  hour  spent  in  religious  worship,  seeks  an  after- 
noon's recreation  for  himself  and  his  family,  and  perhaps  com- 
mits the  crime  of  enjoying  a  glass  of  beer. 

/  told  you:  Whatever  enters  the  mouth  of  man  does  not  make 
him  impure,  and  I  myself  took  part  in  the  pleasures  of  happy 
people.  I  ate  and  drank  with  them,  so  they  called  me  a  wine- 
bibber,  a  debaucher.  You  want  to  prohibit  your  brethren, 
and  if  you  can  all  mankind,  eating  and  drinking  that,  which  you 
don't  eat  or  drink,  O  ye  hypocrites,  ye  Pharisees!  Is  my  teach- 
ing in  any  of  its  parts  compulsory ;  have  I  ever  taught  you  the 
use  of  brutal  force?  Have  I  ever  prohibited  the  use  of  or  con- 
demned any  gift  of  my  Father?"  So  asks  the  brother  of  man- 
kind, the  founder  of  that  universal  religion  which  is  so  beautiful, 
where  the  spirit  of  its  master  takes  possession  of  the  hearts  of  men 


266 

instead  of  hatred  and  the  antagonism  of  his  misguided  followers. 
If  He  should  come  back  to-day  and  see  how  the  places  dedicated 
in  his  name  for  the  worship  of  God  are  desecrated  by  the  slurs  and 
slings  of  irrational  saints,  who  in  His  name  trample  on  the  very 
first  principles  of  his  religion  and  raise  instead  the  banners  of  in- 
tolerance, He  again  would  take  the  whip  and  drive  out  the  whole 
brood. 

The  principal  of  ancient  Christian  churches,  the  Catholic,  the 
Lutheran,  the  Episcopal,  the  Evangelical,  have  at  all  times  worked 
for  true  temperance  in  all  things,  and  have  laid  stress  on  self-re- 
straint and  education.  To  drunkenness  and  wilful  desecration 
of  the  Sabhath  they  were  always  opposed,  but  they  have  tried  to 
remedy  these  evils  hy  means  of  Christian  patience  and  helpful- 
ness. Aho^'c  oil  tvothcrly  l^'-'e  and  charit}'  has  always  been  their 
motto  and  their  aim. 

From  within,  not  without,  comes  true  reform  and  come  all  the 
forces  aiding  the  elevation  of  our  race  which  calls  itself  free  and 
independent.  Let  us  work  accordingly,  my  friends,  citizens  of 
this  country,  to  maintain  the  prestige  of  free  citizenship  that  is 
essential  to  American  honor,  Am.erican  manhood  and  American 
ideals.  Beware,  ye  free  men,  when  the  day  of  this  combat  dawns 
upon  3'"cur  State,  beware  of  casting  your  vote  for  the  revival  and 
resurrection  of  the  well-known  old  blue-laws  that  prohibited 
even  the  mother  from  kissing  her  darling  baby  on  the  Sabbath-day. 
Rise  and  turn  down  the  enemy  facing  you,  and  show  that  you  can 
be  loyal  and  law-abiding  citizens  without  being  chained  like  a  dog 
to  the  prison  walls  of  prohibition.  A^nd  when  you  have  succeeded 
in  preserving  your  liberty  as  free  citizens  of  a  free  country,  show 
those  others  who  tried  to  defame  and  disgrace  you  by  their  slanders 
of  intolerance,  that  you  can  enjoy  your  privileges  with  modera- 
tion and  rightly,  that  you  know  the  difference  between  the  use 
and  misuse  of  God's  gifts,  between  the  open,  well-regulated  sa- 
loon and  the  dive,  between  the  legitimate  enjoyment  of  all  that 
is  good  and  beautiful  in  this  world  of  God, —  and  of  unlimited 
indulgence.  In  the  fullest  m.eaning  of  the  word  "  Stand  up  for 
the  constitution  of  our  country,  common-sense.  Christian  princi- 
ple, freedom  and  mutual  toleration" 


267 


Sixth  and  Closing  Topic  of  the  Congress, 

"  THE  FELLOWSHIP  OF  THE  SPIRIT." 

THE  CHURCH  UNIVERSAL 

BY   ISAAC    H.    CLOTHIER,    OF    PHILADELPHIA,    CHAIRMAN 

It  is  of  course  unnecessary  for  me  to  take  the  chair,  except  as  a 
possible  measure  of  relief  to  my  friend,  the  president  of  the  asso- 
ciation, who  has  borne  the  burden  and  heat  of  the  week,  and  of 
the  previous  weeks  of  preparation  for  these  great  gatherings. 

To  Henry  W.  Wilbur,  president,  to  Rev.  Charles  W.  Wendte, 
secretary',  to  the  two  efficient  working  chairmen  of  committees, 
Susan  W.  Janney  and  Rev.  Charles  E.  St.  John,  the  thanks  of 
this  association  are  eminently  due. 

With  the  long  and  fruitful  program  before  us,  there  would 
seem  to  be  no  excuse  for  the  chairm.an  of  the  evening  to  consume 
any  portion  of  the  precious  time  of  this  last  session. 

There  is,  however,  one  point  I  have  had  in  mind  in  connection 
with  these  noteworthy  gatherings,  which  gatherings  under  the 
broad  intention  outlined  should  do  much  good,  and  which  I  would 
like  to  see  yield  an  abundant  harvest.  But  from  the  first,  as  an 
earnest  well-wisher  to  the  cause  as  I  understood  it,  I  have  had 
some  uneasiness  concerning  the  situation. 

As  I  am  personall}'^  unknown  to  a  considerable  number  of  this 
body,  who  are  not  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  in  whose 
place  of  worship  we  meet,  I  venture  to  preface  my  brief  remarks 
with  the  statement  that  in  the  limited  circle  in  which  I  move  I 
have  never  been  charged  with  undue  conservatism,  but  rather  with 
a  decided  leaning  towards  liberalism,  and  without  denial  on  my 
part. 

The  uneasiness  referred  to  has  been  based  on  the  form  of  organi- 
zation, which,  it  seems  to  me,  tends  largely  to  defeat  the  avowed 
object  of  this  great  association,  and  without  which,  as  I  conceive, 
it  has  no  reason  for  existence  in  its  present  form.     Of  course  di"- 


268 

tinctively,  as  Liberals,  as  leaders  of  advanced  religious  and  secu- 
lar thought,  3'ou  have  a  perfect  right  to  be  associated  under  any 
title  for  religious  or  philanthropic  work,  but  I  have  understood 
that  the  object  sought  to  be  attained  was  the  union  on  one  platform 
of  all  religious  denominations,  similar  to  the  World's  Congress 
of  Religions  in  Chicago  in  1893,  or  the  great  meeting  of  last  Oc- 
tober in  this  house,  when  sixteen  denominations,  representing  all 
the  historic  churches,  met  In  fraternal  relations  and  discussed  Wil- 
liam Penn's  Contribution  to  Religious  Liberty. 

I  therefore  understand  the  purpose  of  the  organization  to  be 
inclusive  in  its  membership  of  all  religious  denominations,  and  ex- 
clusive of  none.  If  this  is  still  the  purpose  as  outlined  In  the 
prospectus  issued,  which  I  do  not  understand  as  having  been  dis- 
avowed, the  title  of  the  association  Is  singularly  inapt,  because, 
instead  of  including  and  inviting  all  religious  sects  to  participa- 
tion in  the  broad  and  beneficent  work,  It  In  effect  excludes  and 
repels  all  who  are  not  In  sympathy  with  the  liberal  and  advanced 
thought  of  the  day.  The  fact  cannot  be  overlooked  that  a  large 
proportion  of  the  Church  is  composed  of  conscientious  and  most 
excellent  people,  though  somewhat  timid  where  theology  Is  con- 
cerned, and  who  look  upon  the  term  "  liberal  "  as  meaning  "  rad- 
ical," and  they  are  not  always  wrong.  The  very  large  body  of 
persons  to  which  I  refer  are  many  of  them  serious  minded  and 
deeply  religious  In  their  natures,  and  to  my  mind  are  those  espe- 
cially meant  to  be  reached  by  this  great  movement,  the  very  per- 
sons who,  more  than  any  others,  need  to  have  the  faith  of  the 
broad  church  brought  home  to  them,  though  not  in  any  proselyt- 
ing sense,  and  whose  participation  would  be  m.ost  significant  and 
useful  to  this  great  cause  of  the  union  of  all  the  churches.  I  do 
not  hesitate  frankly  to  say  that  I  believe  the  full  object  of  the  as- 
sociation as  thus  outlined  is  unattainable;  but  if  that  be  so  I  would 
not  have  the  responsibility  rest  on  us,  and  it  is  an  added  reason 
for  care,  for  caution,  for  well  considered  action,  so  that  we  may 
at  least  accomplish  something  and  not  utterly  fail  in  the  object 
sought. 

As  regards  the  title.  To  my  mind  there  is  a  distinct  difference 
between  the  term  "  Religious  Liberals  "  and  "  Liberal  Religion- 


269 

ists,"  but  as  I  object  to  the  former,  I  object  also  to  the  latter, 
though  in  less  degree.     The  title  I  would  select  is 

THE    NATIONAL   CONGRESS   OF   ALL   RELIGIONS 

I  believe  this  title  to  be  wholly  unobjectionable  from  any  point 
of  view,  and  I  respectfully  submit  it  for  the  deliberate  considera- 
tion of  the  concerned  and  thoughtful  members  of  this  body. 

I  fully  recognize  the  high  aims  of  the  sincere  and  consecrated 
workers  in  the  cause,  and  I  mean  to  be  the  reverse  of  critical,  as 
my  sole  object  is  helpfulness. 

Please  bear  in  mind  that  I  am  with  you ;  I  am  on  the  liberal 
side;  I  train  with  that  regiment.  But  holding  sacredly  my  own 
religious  views,  I  as  sacredly  respect  the  rights  of  others,  and  if  I 
am  to  be  a  worker  in  this  particular  cause,  it  must  not  be  under  the 
narrow  and  exclusive  banner  of  Evangelism,  nor  the  opposing 
and  also  exclusive  banner  of  Liberalism,  nor  under  any  other  ex- 
clusive banner,  but  on  the  broad  platform  which  will  welcome 
all  who  believe  in  the  "  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood 
of  man,"  and  which  extends  open  arms  to  the  whole  membership 
of  the  Church  Universal. 

LIBERTY  AND  UNION  IN   RELIGION 

REV.  CHAS.   G.  AMES,  D.D.,   OF   BOSTON 

Mr.  Chairman,  there  may  be  justice  in  j'our  criticism  of  the 
Congress  as  lacking  in  comprehensiveness;  but  please  consider 
this  gathering,  not  as  a  review  of  the  Grand  Army  of  Progress,  but 
as  one  drill  of  an  awkward  squad,  which  yet  represents  in  its 
miniature  way  the  grandest  aspirations  of  humanity,  the  desire 
of  nations  —  the  awakened  and  wide-spread  passion  for  a  re- 
ligious commonwealth.  Men  want  men.  They  are  hungrj^  for 
brotherhood.  To  sow  the  world  with  comradeship  is  a  divine 
industry. 

But  every  army  which  fights  for  liberty  fights  also  for  union. 
We  would  break  every  yoke  of  bondage  that  all  men  may  be 
free  to  join  hands.  The  music  of  broken  chains  is  a  rough 
prelude  to  the  anthem  of  universal  harmony. 


270 

And  so  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  we  set  up  our  banners;  for 
this  is  primarily  a  spiritual  movement.  Our  declared  object  is 
"  to  promote  the  religious  life."  And  to  do  this  "  by  united 
testimony  for  sincerity,  freedom  and  progress  in  religion;  by 
social  service;  and  by  a  fellowship  beyond  the  lines  of  sect  and 
creed." 

Liberty,  union,  religion !  —  we  would  not  use  these  three  great 
words;  as  they  have  been  degraded  by  misuse  and  bad  company. 
We  aspire  to  be  "a  brotherhood  of  seekers  after  the  highest 
truth  and  the  highest  life."  We  would  feel  after  the  founda- 
tions of  reality,  like  the  wise  man  who  digs  deep  and  builds  on 
the  rock.  We  give  to  religion  the  seat  of  honor,  because  under 
that  name  clear-seeing  and  deep-hearted  men  have  gathered  the 
most  sacred  and  vital  interests  of  mankind,  which  give  value  to 
all  else. 

Thus  religion,  is  not  separate  from  life,  but  identical  with  it  — 
a  pervading  spirit,  dominating  all  human  affairs  by  divine  au- 
thority, ruling  by  an  inward  law,  guided  by  an  inward  light. 

The  constitution  of  man  is  the  Maker's  revelation,  and  is  the 
supreme  law  of  our  life,  anything  in  the  books  and  the  customs 
notwithstanding.  For  his  own  completeness,  therefore,  each 
man  must  live  under  the  law  of  liberty.  He  must  be  unhindered 
by  disturbance  from  within  or  pressure  from  without.  But  his 
constitution  provides  for  social  relations  as  one  condition  of  per- 
sonal completeness  and  welfare.  Self-acquaintance  makes  us 
aware  that  we  belong  to  a  larger  whole.  Thus  liberty  and 
union  are  "  one  and  inseparable,"  in  religion  as  in  the  ideal  state. 
The  moral  order  makes  room  for  every  body  and  soul  as  heaven 
makes  room  for  all  the  stars,  yes,  and  for  systems  of  stars.  The 
free,  normal  life  of  each  and  the  collective  life  of  all  will  not 
be  difficult  when  there  is  no  more  crowding. 

We  shall  get  on  better  when  it  is  once  understood  that  behind 
all  differences  reason  and  goodness  mean  the  same  thing  to  all 
men.  As  Dean  Stanley  says:  "All  we  need  is  to  become  wiser 
and  better."  We  need  no  other  platform  for  liberty  and  union, 
or  for  religion  itself.  For  do  not  all  men  who  think,  at  all, 
believe  in  the  Power  which  is  everywhere  at  work  "  to  make 
the  bad  good  and  the  good  better?" 


271 

These  higher  interests,  like  the  light  and  air,  are  our  common 
possession,  about  which  there  need  be  no  quarrel,  since  there  is 
enough  for  each  and  for  all.  And  the  more  you  have  the  richer 
I  shall  be. 

This  very  simplicity  lights  our  way  through  the  perplexing 
problems  of  modern  life.  No  liberty  is  real  which  breaks  or 
ignores  the  social  bond.  No  social  order  can  satisfy  which  seeks 
for  union  at  the  expense  of  liberty.  No  religion  can  meet  our 
real  need  or  suit  our  nature  which  does  not  unite  us  in  the 
*'  sweet  reasonableness  "  of  truth  and  love. 

LIBERTY  AND  UNITY 

REV.  GEORGE  H.  FERRIS,  D.D.,   PASTOR  FIRST  BAPTIST  CHURCH, 
PHILADELPHIA 

Liberty  and  Unity  are  two  values  that  are  not  easily  adjusted. 
The  problem  of  the  one  and  the  many,  which  lies  at  the  basis  of 
so  much  philosophical  speculation,  is  manifest  here  also.  In  the 
preface  to  his  little  book  on  "  Human  Immortality,"  Professor 
James  denies  that  his  conception  of  a  mental  world  behind  the 
veil  teaches  Pantheism,  and  adds:  "There  might  be  many  minds 
behind  the  scenes,  as  well  as  one."  Someone  has  said  that  human 
thinking  has  never  found  a  place  for  both  God  and  man  in  the 
universe.  I  take  it  that  we  are  just  trjang  to  find  a  place  for  both 
God  and  man  in  the  church. 

The  average  Baptist  loves  independence.  Let  me  say  that 
there  is  one  Baptist  who  also  loves  unity.  I  saw  two  men  once 
on  an  ocean  steamer,  one  from  northern  Poland  and  the  other  from 
a  little  town  in  Sicily,  sit  down  and  hold  a  conversation  in  Latin. 
I  admired  the  marvelous  unity  of  the  great  hierarchy  that  enabled 
its  priests  to  do  that.  For  a  moment  the  swarm  of  Protestant 
sects  seemed  to  me  to  be  the  picture  of  weakness  and  shame.  Then 
I  began  to  hear  something.  I  heard  the  thunder  of  Papal  bulls 
against  progress.  I  heard  the  crack  of  the  lash  that  in  the  last 
century  forced  such  broad-minded  men  as  Lacordaire,  Montalem- 
bert,  and  Father  Hyacinthe  into  humiliating  retractions,  or  open 
rupture.  I  heard  the  recent  bulls  against  "  Modernism,"  and 
the  denunciations  hurled  against  Father  Tyrrel,  Abbe  Loisy,  and 


272 

their  like.  Then,  down  across  the  ages,  came  the  words  of  old 
Tertulh'an :  "  Schoolboy's  are  proud  of  their  new  shoes,  but  the  old 
Master  beats  their  strutting  vanity  out  of  them."  In  the  midst 
of  Such  meditations  the  longing  for  unity  vanished. 

I  felt  it  again.  I  was  in  the  great  cathedral  in  Seville.  It 
was  the  hour  of  High  Mass.  The  tones  of  the  organ,  as  they 
crept  through  nave  and  transept,  enchanted  the  soul.  The 
breathless  ascent  of  the  mighty  pillars,  as  they  faded  in  Gothic 
arches  above,  filled  me  with  aspiration.  Alas  for  our  Protestant 
sheds  and  shanties !     I  was  ready  to  cry  with  Lowell : 

"  Can  our  religion  cope  with  deeds  like  this?  " 

Suddenly  the  host  was  elevated.  The  verger  came  and  touched 
me  on  the  shoulder,  commanding  me  to  kneel.  I  almost  did  it. 
I  could  have  done  it,  if  only  I  could  have  forgotten.  It  was  not 
possible  to  forget  the  gaunt  creatures,  who  scratched  the  word 
"  Resist "  on  the  stone  floor  of  the  Tour  de  Constance.  It  was 
not  possible  to  forget  the  wanderings  through  the  valleys  of  Swit- 
zerland of  the  followers  of  the  "  Poor  Man  of  Lyons."  So  I 
walked  out. 

Will  someone  please  tell  me  what  to  do?  No  sooner  do  I  feel 
comfortable  and  happy  than  I  feel  that  touch  on  my  shoulder.  I 
love  the  orthodox  churches.  They  are  full  of  devotion,  of  loy- 
alt}%  of  earnestness,  of  missionary  passion,  of  works  of  benevolence. 
There  are  times,  however,  when  they  insist  that  truth  is  best  seen 
through  an  incense-cloud  of  dogma.  They  endeavor,  often,  to 
surround  a  Book  with  an  artificial  atmosphere  of  unworldly  adora- 
tion, and  send  around  their  agents  to  tell  us  to  get  down,  or  get 
out.  The  alternative  is  not  pleasant.  It  is  noisy  outside.  Lib- 
eralism lacks  repose.     It  jostles  us,  when  we  try  to  pray. 

This  is  the  problem  of  Liberty  and  Unity,  as  I  see  it.  I  do  not 
like  the  average  liberal.  He  laughs  at  me  when  I  tell  him  that 
a  church  has  no  right  to  found  itself  on  a  dogma,  whether  of 
Trinity  or  Unity.  He  does  not  understand,  when  I  say  that  we 
ought  to  have  people  in  the  church  who  believe  in  miracles,  as 
well  as  people  who  do  not.  He  looks  at  me  with  amazement, 
when  I  say  that  I  love  men,  not  spectacles;  that  I  long  for  a 
spiritual  fellowship,  not  for  a  faith  that  is  analyzed ;  that  I  feel 
more  at  home  with  those  who  worship  an  ideal  Christ,  than  with 


273 

those  who  are  able  to  explain  the  man  Jesus.  And  yet  these  great 
meetings  have  strengthened  me  in  one  conviction.  When  I  take 
the  hand  of  my  friend,  Rabbi  Krauskopf,  and  see  in  his  eyes  the 
light  of  the  same  Spirit  that  I  worship,  I  know  that  if  we  could 
get  at  the  heart  of  any  religion  we  w^ould  find  the  Spirit  of  all 
religion.  I  am  therefore  profoundly  convinced  that  the  genu- 
inely liberal  man  will  be  one  who  believes,  not  less,  but  more  than 
the  orthodox. 

REV.  W,   H.   HAINER,  IRVINGTON,  N.  J. 

I  deem  it  a  great  honor  to  be  asked  to  be  present  to-night  at 
this  meeting  as  one  of  the  body  of  Christian  people  known  simply 
as  Christians. 

And  I  am  indeed  happy  in  the  privilege  of  being  present  and 
participating  even  in  a  most  humble  manner  in  this  closing  ses- 
sion of  your  splendid  Congress,  which  I  sincerely  trust  will, 
because  of  the  genuineness  of  the  good  fellowship  here  Indulged 
go  into  history  as  one  of  the  most  inspiring  and  helpful  sessions 
of  this  assembly. 

I  bring  to  you  the  kindly  cordial  fellowship  and  God  speed  of 
the  Christian  Church.  While  it  is  true,  that  as  a  church  we  do 
not  endorse  all  the  principles  here  represented  by  the  various 
bodies,  it  is  true  that  we  stand  for  the  heartiest  cooperation  in 
every  movement  that  has  for  its  aim  the  betterment  of  mankind, 
and  it  is  clearly  perceptible  that  this  is  the  animating  spirit  of 
this  Federation  of  Religious  Liberals. 

We  delight  in  your  fellowship  as  a  company  of  man-loving  and 
God-serving  people,  who  without  regard  to  creed  have  joined 
forces  for  the  moral  and  social  welfare  of  mankind.  We  believe 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  divine  and  only  begotten  Son  of 
God,  and  love  and  worship  Him  as  the  Head  of  the  Church,  and 
seek  to  honor  and  obey  all  His  teachings,  and  we  honor  the  words 
of  Peter  as  in  accord  with  the  teachings  of  Jesus  when  he  said  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  10:34,  35:  "  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that 
God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth 
and  worketh  righteousness  is  acceptable  to  Him." 

So  we  are  constrained  to  regard  with  profoundest  respect  and 
cooperation  every  ambition   that  tends  toward  the  elevation  and 


274 

ennoblement  of  man,  even  though  those  ambitions  do  not  con- 
form in  every  detail  with  our  prescribed  methods. 

We  grant  that  individual  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  is 
the  right  and  duty  of  every  man,  and  therefore  strongly  refrain 
from  every  appearance  of  ecclesiastical  domination. 

As  Dr.  John  Burns  Weston,  representing  our  body  at  the  In- 
ternational Congress  of  Liberals  in  Boston,  said  at  a  meeting  in 
King's  Chapel :  "  Our  body  came  into  existence  as  a  protest 
against  ecclesiastical  domination  and  in  assertion  of  liberty  of 
thought  and  speech,"  There  is  a  sense  in  which  I  may  feel  as 
much  at  ease  in  this  Federation  as  any  other  man  representing  an 
orthodox  body,  because  of  the  broad,  liberal  fellowship  which  we 
delight  to  manifest  and  extend  to  all  God's  people  seeking  to 
promote  the  moral  and  religious  welfare  of  the  sons  of  earth. 

With  just  what  measure  of  the  future  Jane  Borthwick's  poetic 
prophecy  reckoned,  we  may  not  determine,  but  from  the  splendid 
spirit  of  good  will  so  manifest  in  this  session  we  may  venture  to 
believe  that  in  the  not  far  distant  future  we  may  realize  in  some 
measure  the  fulfillment  of  the  same. 

Now  is  the  time  approaching, 

By  prophets  long  foretold, 
When  all  shall  meet  together, 

One  Shepherd  and  one  fold. 

Now  Jew  and  Gentile  meeting 

From  many  a  distant  shore, 
Around  one  altar  kneeling, 

One   common   Lord  adore. 

Let   all   that  now   divides   us. 

Remove  and  pass  away, 
Like  shadows  in  the  morning 

Before   the   blaze   of    day. 

Let  all  that  now  unites  us 

More  sweet  and  lasting  prove, 
A   closer  bond   of  union 

In  a  blest  bond  of  love. 


275 


HENRY    MOTTET,    D.D.,    RECTOR    OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    THE    HOLY 
COMMUNION,    NEW   YORK   CITY 

I  esteem  it  an  honor  to  attend  this  closing  meeting,  speaking  for 
and  bearing  greetings  from  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Communion, 
New  York.  Founded  by  the  Saintly  Muhlenberg  more  than  sixty 
years  ago,  he  began  then  and  there  the  realization  of  a  dream 
which  finds  much  of  its  fulfillment  in  this  National  Federation 
of  Religious  Liberals.  In  giving  that  church  its  unique  name, 
he  emphasized  the  fact  that  the  Church  was  to  be  the  Father's 
House  for  all  of  the  Father's  children,  regardless  of  sect  and  color. 
It  was  to  be  an  absolutely  free  Church  for  the  holy  communion 
or  fellowship  of  all  mankind.  As  God  knows  nothing  of  sect  or 
denomination,  so  this  Church  should  ever  do  the  same.  The  re- 
sult is  that  this  Church,  always  open,  with  its  frequent  services  on 
week  days  as  well  as  on  Sundays,  is  constantly  in  use ;  while  at  its 
Holy  Table,  prepared  for  the  Master's  guests  never  less  than 
three  times  each  week,  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  meet  with  Him 
and  with  one  another,  in  total  disregard  of  sect  or  denomination. 

Let  this  Federation  ever  stand  for  and  proclaim  this  kind  of 
catholicity, —  the  catholicity  which  so  inspiringly  characterizes  this 
present  conference, —  and  a  long  step  will  have  been  taken,  and 
a  large  contribution  will  have  been  made  toward  the  ushering  in  of 
that  yearned  for  day  when  there  shall  be  "  one  flock  and  one 
shepherd." 

I  congratulate  all  who  have  had  any  share  in  the  planning  of 
this  great  Conference,  and  with  them  I  praise  God  for  this  nota- 
ble achievement. 

PERCIVAL    CHUBB,    OF    NEW    YORK,    LECTURER    ETHICAL    CULTURE 

SOCIETY 

On  the  basis  of  numbers,  mine  must  be  the  smallest  voice  heard 
here  to-night  —  the  voice  of  the  extreme  left  in  the  parliament  of 
religion.  Of  us  it  cannot  even  be  said, —  to  use  the  figure  em- 
ployed here  to-night, —  that  we  advance  under  the  banner  of  the 
Lord.  Some  of  us  own  no  Lord.  The  fact  that  anyone  should 
wish  to  bear  aloft  the  banner  that  is  inscribed  with  the  simple  de- 
vice—  Truth,  Right  and  Love, —  is  enough  for  us.     If  there  is 


276 

anything  we  would  have  inscribed  on  the  other  side  of  that  banner, 
it  might  be  that  fine  saying:  "A  Life  is  a  Confession  of  Faith." 
We  admit  no  other  kind  of  ultimate  confession :  We  ask  for  no 
other. 

However,  what  I  chiefly  wish  to  say  is  how  very  gladly  we,  of 
the  Ethical  Societies,  grasp  the  hand  of  fellowship  which  is  ex- 
tended to  us  here.  We  would  eagerly  embrace  every  opportunity 
that  is  offered  —  and  it  comes  so  seldom  —  to  unite  with  others 
in  that  fellowship  of  the  spirit  which  is  to  us  the  supreme  and,  in- 
deed, the  only  form  of  religious  fellowship. 

For  us,  it  is  the  only  fellowship,  I  say;  for  we'  differ  from 
most  of  you  here  as  not  having  or  desiring  any  fellowship  in  creed 
among  ourselves.  Ours  is  a  fellowship  in  the  spirit  of  truth,  but 
not  in  any  one  system  of  truth;  fellowship  in  love  and  duty,  but 
not  in  any  one  way  of  justifying,  of  rationalizing  these  fruits  of 
the  spirit.  For  us  they  are  self-authenticating,  their  own  excuse 
for  being.  It  is  in  no  temper  of  controversy,  but  to  remove  a  pre- 
vailing misunderstanding,  that  I  venture  to  explain  that  this  fun- 
damental position  is  not  the  result  of  any  light  opinion  of  creeds 
and  philosophies.  On  the  contrary,  we  expect  ever}-  one  in  our 
religious  communion  to  attempt  to  build  an  ever-expanding  creed. 
But  because  knowledge  widens  with  the  j^ears  and  the  centuries, 
and  wisdom  grows  with  living,  w^e  regard  creeds  and  philoso- 
phies as  developing  continuously  with  the  developing  life  of  the 
individual  and  the  race.  And  so,  because  fixity  or  finality  in 
creed  is  impossible,  or  undesirable  even,  it  is  for  us  a  form  of 
intellectual  impiety  to  commit  one's  self  to  a  philosophy  or  belief, 
except  in  a  provisional  manner  and  with  the  full  hope  of  out- 
growing it. 

In  the  spirit  of  such  a  fellowship,  we  would  be  united  with 
others  above  all  distinctions  of  sect  and  race  and  creed  in  a  great 
brotherhood  of  the  spirit;  and  would  follow  the  leadership  of 
Socrates  and  Buddha  and  Confucius,  no  less  than  that  of  Jesus 
and  Paul  and  John ;  Aurelius  and  Emerson,  as  well  as  St.  Francis 
and  a  Kempis ;  in  short,  of  that  great  world-wide  communion  of 
saints  and  heroes,  who  are  the  cloud  of  witnesses  to  the  eternal 
reality  of  truth  and  goodness. 

In  such  spirit,  we  would  unite  with  all  those  who  would  unite 


277 

with  us  in  battling  for  the  things  which  will  lift  us  and  the  men 
of  our  generation  above  the  crippling  narrowness  of  their  political 
creeds,  purging  them  of  what  is  partisan  and  selfish,  and  above 
the  bitter  sectarianism  of  our  sociological  creeds,  our  extremes  of 
socialism  and  anarchism.  Let  us  be  as  sturdily  as  we  will  social- 
ists or  anarchists;  but  let  our  fellowship  of  the  spirit  lift  us  out 
of  the  dark  valley  of  sectarian  zeal  up  to  the  hilltop  of  the  widest 
human  vision  and  sympathy. 

In  short,  in  this  fellowship  of  the  spirit  we  would  work  to- 
gether with  all  of  you  for  those  things  which  we  have  failed  to 
gain  because  we;  have  not  been  magnanimous  enough  to  work  to- 
gether. We  would,  for  example,  work  for  peace  in  these  days  of 
menacing  war.  How  shameful  it  is  that  the  voices  of  all  of  us  — 
especially  of  those  who  are  followers  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  — 
should  not  ring  out  in  thunderous  protest  against  the  impious  mili- 
tarism that  is  laying  waste  life  and  treasure  and  sowing  the  dragon 
teeth  of  hate  among  the  nations!  We  would  work  together  with 
all  against  the  secular-rnindedness  and  vulgar  materialism  of  the 
age ;  —  the  lack  of  reverence  and  of  modesty ;  against  the  fanati- 
cism of  sport, —  the  epidemic  of  card-playing;  against  the  reckless 
extravagance,  the  spirit  of  indulgence  and  of  luxurj''  which  seems 
to  be  getting  more  and  more  ram.pant  in  our  great  cities.  Fi- 
nally, we  would  be  united  with  j'^ou  all  in  promoting  that  prac- 
tical faith  in  the  power  of  the  spirit  itself, —  the  power  of  ideas 
and  the  power  of  character,  which,  despite  all  our  differences, 
means  very  much  the  same  thing  to  us  all. 

DR.  JESSE   H.   HOLMES,    SWARTHMORE  COLLEGE,    PENN. 

I  have  felt  this  evening  for  the  first  time  a  slight  regret  that 
the  Society  of  Friends  should  have  adopted  the  name  which  it 
bears,  because  it  seems  to  me  that  the  name  "  Society  of  Friends  " 
would  be  so  eminently  appropriate  for  this  federation.  The  tie 
that  should  bind  this  company  together  is  surely  that  of  friend- 
ship rather  than  any  community  of  belief  or  any  formal  manner 
of  conducting  religious  worship. 

With  this  fact  in  mind  I  am  going  to  take  it  on  myself,  under 
the  system  of  anarchy  which  characterizes  the  government  of  the 
Friends,  to  invite  this  whole  company  into  immediate  membership, 


278 

and  I  shall  from  this  time  on  count  you  all  as  members  of  a  Soci- 
ety of  Friends.  At  the  same  time  I  do  not  doubt  that  others 
represented  here  will  gladly  receive  us  all  into  their  church  rela- 
tionship as  well,  and  I  do  not  question  that  we  can  equally  well 
accept  their  invitations.  We  can  all  be  Baptists  after  the  bap- 
tism of  the  spirit  felt  in  the  address  of  the  first  speaker;  we  can 
all  be  Christians;  we  can  all  be  disciples;  we  alike  recognize  the 
unity  of  God  and  of  humanity,  and  of  the  universal  hope  for  man 
that  there  is  in  the  universal  fatherhood  of  God.  Remembering 
also  what  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Hebrew  people  have  been  to 
the  Western  world,  remembering  the  burning  words  of  their 
prophets,  and  that  the  great  prophet  from  whom  we  take  the  name 
of  Christian  was  himself  a  Jew,  who  is  there  among  us  who  will 
not  gladly  feel  himself  of  the  congregation  of  the  Synagogue? 

This  federation  has  been  advised  by  one  of  the  great  leaders  of 
liberal  thought  not  to  separate  without  actually  having  done  some- 
thing. There  is  a  phrase  of  the  Society  of  Friends  which  I  have 
not  often  used,  and  which  has  usually  aroused  in  me  feelings  of 
repugnance  and  opposition.  I  refer  to  the  phrase  "  creaturely 
activity."  The  request  that  this  federation  shall  "  do  something" 
has  given  that  term  a  meaning  which  I  am  inclined  to  approve.  I 
shall  be  satisfied  if  it  cannot  be  said  of  this  federation  that  it  is 
responsible  for  "  creaturely  activity."  The  coming  together  of 
this  federation  is  in  itself  "  doing  something."  The  meetings 
marked  with  harmony  and  sympathy  are  of  themselves  an  accom- 
plishment in  the  direction  of  the  unity  of  mankind.  They  are  a 
protest  against  that  false  religion  which  sets  men  apart  in  mutu- 
ally repellant  groups,  each  asserting:  "  I  am  holier  than  thou." 
The  federation  recognizes  the  possibility  and  the  value  of  a  di- 
versity which  eventuates  in  a  more  perfect  oneness.  While  these 
meetings  have  not  been,  and  in  my  judgment  should  not  be,  ex- 
ecutive sessions  where  external  things  should  be  accomplished,  it 
is  to  do  something  and  to  do  much  that  a  thousand  and  more  shall 
go  from  this  place  strengthened  and  uplifted  in  their  life  work. — 
more  truly  dedicated  to  the  service  of  man.  The  teacher  will  go 
to  his  desk  with  a  truer  and  deeper  consecration  ;  the  merchant  will 
serve  his  customer  as  one  who  clothes  the  naked ;  the  farmer  will 


279 

labor  to  feed  the  hungry,  and  all  will  feel  more  deeply  the  soli- 
darity of  the  human  brotherhood. 

There  is  only  one  barrier  that  stands  between  us  and  that  ideal 
humanity  toward  which  we  strive,  and  it  is  not  mountain  ranges, 
uncharted  deserts,  or  trackless  seas  that  divide  us  from  that  ideal. 
Like  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  the  barrier  which  separates  us  from 
it  is  within  us,  and  any  gathering  which  tends  to  throw  down  that 
barrier  or  to  remove  any  part  of  it  has  done  something,  and  some- 
thing that  Avill  stand  as  a  genuine  contribution  to  the  forward 
movement  of  mankind. 

REV.   CARL  A.   VOSS,   D.D.,   GERMAN    EVANGELICAL   PROTESTANT 
CHURCH,   PITTSBURG,   PA. 

The  search  for  light  and  truth  has  ofttimes  brought  disunion  and 
distress  upon  untold  numbers.  That  the  rays  of  light  have  a  com- 
mon source  but  in  their  effulgence  appear  to  men  in  varied  hues, 
and  that  of  the  one  truth  the  human  mind  because  of  its  limita- 
tions can  encompass  no  more  than  a  few  phases,  has  rarely  been 
fully  appreciated.  It  remained  for  our  enlightened  day  to  wit- 
ness conferences  such  as  this,  dedicated  not  to  the  glorification  of 
one  ray  of  light  nor  to  the  exaltation  of  one  phase  of  truth  but  to 
a  united,  sympathetic,  tolerant  search  for  light  and  truth. 

To  you  laboring  for  this  sublime  cause  I  bring  the  greetings 
of  those  engaged  in  a  similar  activity.  For  almost  a  century  the 
German  Evangelical  Protestant,  in  the  old  Fatherland  as  well  as 
upon  American  soil,  has  sought  to  unite  the  spiritual  energies  of 
those  of  Lutheran  and  Reformed  persuasion  in  a  common  worship 
of  God,  a  common  service  of  humanity  and  a  united  search  for 
more  light  and  fuller  truth.  Protesting  in  the  spirit  of  the  re- 
formers against  all  attempts  at  compulsion  in  matters  of  faith 
and  conscience,  the  true  Evangelical  Protestant  granted  unto  oth- 
ers the  same  liberty  of  thought  that  he  demanded  for  himself. 
Appreciating  the  full  import  of  your  endeavors,  he  welcomes  the 
support  and  kindly  good-will  of  those  who  either  in  the  spirit  of 
their  fathers  have  continued  the  work  of  liberating  the  hearts  of 
their  fellowmen,  or  in  the  spirit  of  awakened  freedom  have  cast 
off  the  shackles  and  bonds  of  superstition  and  Ignorance  and  joined 


the  ranks  of  those  who  know  no  higher  law  than  in  the  spirit  of 
God  to  work  for  the  true  uplift  of  humanity. 

We  rejoice  in  the  consummation  of  this  federation.  We  offer 
our  good  wishes,  pledge  our  support  and  invoke  God's  blessing 
upon  your  labors,  for  emblazoned  upon  your  banner  we  read  the 
words,  dear  to  us :  "  Virtue,  Truth,  Liberty."  To  those  who  have 
preceded  us  on  the  upward  march  to  the  mount  of  glory  we  say: 
*'  God  speed !  "  To  those  who  accompany  us  we  give  a  helping 
hand.  For  those  whose  minds  and  hearts  are  still  in  bondage  we 
pray  that  the  day  may  speedily  come  when  light  and  truth  will 
become  their  portion,  and  thus  make  them  conscious  sharers  in  the 
imperishable  heritage  of  the  children  of  God. 

RABBI    J.    KRAUSKOPF,    D.D.,    TEMPLE    KENESETH    ISRAEL,    PHILA- 
DELPHIA 

The  First  Congress  of  Religious  Liberals  concludes  to-night. 
But  only  its  sessions.  The  spirit  to  which  it  has  given  rise  will 
continue  active,  will  root  deeper  and  spread  wider  that  higher 
conception  of  religion  that  sees  harmony  amidst  diversity  and  creed 
in  deed,  that  sees  in  every  man  a  brother,  a  child  of  the  same  God, 
an  heir  of  the  same  destiny. 

One  who  has  thoughtfully  followed  the  views  that  have  been 
expressed,  and  noted  the  deep  impression  they  have  made,  cannot 
but  believe  that  the  day  is  fast  approaching  when  the  holding  of 
different  theological  opinions  will  no  longer  constitute  a  bar  to  fel- 
lowship in  religious  and  social  work,  when  people  professing  reli- 
gion will  recognize  that  all  creeds  are  but  groping  in  the  dark 
toward  the  light,  all  theologies  but  speculations  concerning  the 
unknowable,  all  modes  of  worship  but  yearnings  of  the  human 
soul  for  communion  with  the  All-Soul,  and  all  forms  but  rungs 
on  the  ladder  of  faith,  on  which  the  soul  seeks  to  mount. 

We  may  have  guesses  at  truth,  we  may  have  occasional 
glimpses,  even  partial  revelations,  of  it,  but  the  full  vision  of  it 
we  never  have  had,  and  probably  never  shall.  The  answer  given 
to  Moses  upon  his  asking  to  see  the  face  of  God :  "  No  man  living 
shall  see  the  face  of  God,"  is  the  answer  respecting  truth.  Its 
full  vision  would  probably  be  as  fatal  to  the  human  mind  in  its 
present  state  of  finiteness,  as  full  vision  of  the  sun  is  fatal  to  the 


28l 

human  eye.  We  have  probably  as  much  of  the  truth  as  we  are 
fit  for,  and  as  we  need  for  walking  aright  the  way  of  life.  One 
may  have  one  fragment  of  it,  another  another  fragment ;  one  may 
divine  something  of  the  whence;  another  something  of  the  whither; 
no  one  can  say  or  dare  say,  that  his  creed  solves  the  mystery  of  life 
or  the  mystery  of  death,  that  it  explains  creation,  or  analyzes  the 
human  soul. 

Truth  being,  therefore,  by  reason  of  our  finiteness,  a  part  of  all 
our  creeds,  I  can  read  over  the  entrance  of  every  church,  the  in- 
scription that  graced  an  ancient  Temple  "  Introite,  nam  et  hie  dit 
sunt "  "  Enter,  for  here  too,  are  the  Gods,"  excepting  that  for 
the  word  Gods  I  place  the  word  Truth. 

It  is  in  our  earnest  search  for  the  truth  wherein  may  lie  our  de- 
serving more  of  it.  Ours  therefore  is  the  duty  earnestly  to  search 
for  it,  and  freely  to  share  with  others  whatever  we  find ;  as  to  the 
revelations  of  it,  that  is  in  the  wisdom  of  God.  "  Were  God  to 
offer  me  the  choice,"  said  Lessing,  "  between  the  whole  truth  and 
the  love  of  the  search  for  it,  with  the  understanding  that  I  shall 
never  find  it,  I  would  choose  the  latter,  knowing  that  Truth  Is 
for  God  alone." 

Little  though  the  truth  may  be  which  our  search  has  brought  to 
light,  it  is  enough  to  teach  us  that  in  all  essential  points  of  reli- 
gion no  difference  obtains  bet\\'een  us.  All  of  us  believe  alike  in 
a  Supreme  Being,  who  is  perfect,  and  Avho  desires  man  to  be  per- 
fect. Over  all  our  creeds  stand  graven  the  opening  words  of  Le- 
viticus XIX:  "Ye  shall  be  holy,  for  holy  am  I,  the  Lord,  yowx 
God."  All  of  us  believe  alike  in  the  Moral  Law.  No  liberal 
doubts  that  in  abiding  by  the  Moral  Law,  we  shall  all  alike  be 
acceptable  unto  God,  whether  Gentile  or  whether  Jew,  whether 
Catholic  or  Protestant,  whether  Trinitarian  or  Unitarian. 

If  differing  theologies  do  not  permit  us  to  worship  together, 
thanks  be  to  God  that  the  same  Moral  Law  enables  us  to  labor 
together  in  the  spread  of  Peace  on  Earth  and  Good  Will  among 
men.  Seething  about  us  is  a  world  of  corruption.  Might  is 
struggling  with  right.  Capital  and  Labor  stand  arrayed  against 
each  other.  Shocking  extravagance  looks  unpityingly  upon  ap- 
palling want.  Is  there  no  work  to  do?  Are  our  forces  so  strong 
that  we  can  afford  to  say:  "  Because  our  conceptions  of  God  or  of 


282 

the  hereafter  differ,  therefore  we  cannot  work  in  common  for  the 
good  of  man?  " 

Church  history  tells  us  of  an  abbey  in  Brittany,  composed  of 
two  convents,  one  for  nuns,  the  other  for  monks.  The  two  sexes 
were  never  permitted  to  see  each  other.  Even  when  at  common 
service  in  the  same  chapel,  a  partition  wall  eight  feet  high  sepa- 
rated them.  But,  notwithstanding  partition  walls,  when  they  sang 
their  hymns  their  voices  blended  beautifully  together.  Signifi- 
cantly the  Latin  chronicler  adds:  "  Murus  Corpora  non  voces  dis- 
jungit,"  "  the  wall  separated  their  bodies  but  not  their  voices." 

So,  though  our  respective  churches  separate  our  bodies  when 
at  service,  outside  the  church  our  minds  and  hearts  and  hands 
may  blend  beautifully  together  in  the  furtherance  of  God's  work 
on  earth. 

BY   REV.    LUTHER  DEYOE,   D.D.,    LUTHERAN 

I  am  glad  to  give  my  endorsement  to  the  great  movement 
represented  by  the  convention.  A  man  who  said,  "  Here  I  stand. 
I  cannot  do  otherwise;  so  help  me  God,"  had  much  to  do  with 
the  founding  of  the  church  to  which  it  is  my  pleasure  to  belong. 

Every  man  should  have  a  sense  of  liberty  in  his  religious  life. 
He  should  feel  free  to  follow  what  he  considers  his  honest,  in- 
telligent conclusions.  Tlie  best  condition  will  come  when  each 
man  knows  that  he  will  not  be  persecuted  because  of  what  he 
feels  he  must  believe  religiously. 

Such  liberty  may  lead  to  many  divisions.  There  is  one  thing 
infinitely  worse  in  this  particular  and  that  is  oppression.  Op- 
pression because  of  religious  convictions  has  brought  some  of  the 
most  diabolical  of  experiences  that  the  world  has  ever  seen. 
Libert}'  has  finally  brought  love.  Oppression  has  brought  the 
saddest  of  hatred,  and  God  is  not  hatred.  God  never  directed 
one  man  to  make  another  physically  uncomfortable  because  the 
two  differed  from  each  other  spiritually.  H  from  to-day  there 
would  be  no  physical  violence  because  of  differences  in  religious 
belief  the  world  would  have  a  most  heavy  burden  lifted  from 
it.  H  Christian  had  no  more  distress  to  fear  from  Mohamme- 
dan; if  Protestant  could  be  sure  of  no  more  persecution  from 
Romanist;  if  the  long-suffering  Jew  could  only  know  that  from 


283 

to-day  he  would  be  safe  from  the  outrages  of  those  who  disobey 
Jesus  while  they  profess  to  love  Him,  what  a  happy  world  this 
would  be  for  thousands  who  stand  in  dread  of  almost  any  cruelty! 
In  religion  at  least,  men  should  have  every  encouragement  to  be 
honest.  Any  one  has  made  an  attainment  worth  while  if  he 
is  able  to  listen  without  a  spirit  of  resentment  to  the  representa- 
tive of  the  other  religious  party.  I  heartily  approve  of  this  or- 
ganization because  that  is  the  spirit  it  is  set  to  promote.  The 
best  religious  work  will  be  done  when  men  will  investigate 
religious  questions  not  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  their  side, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  finding  more  light.  May  this  Federation 
hasten  the  coming  of  that  better  day. 

REV.    H.    K.    HEEBNER,    PASTOR    FIRST    SCHWENKFELDIAN  CHURCH, 
PHILADELPHIA,   WROTE: 

I  am  unavoidably  prevented  from  attending  the  closing  session 
of  the  Congress  to-morrow  evening  and  from  responding  briefly 
to  my  name  as  indicated  upon  the  program.  I  attended  the  ses- 
sions of  to-day  and  was  greatly  profited  and  pleased  by  the  ad- 
dresses, prophecies  of  the  civilization  of  Heaven  in  the  earth. 

Truly  the  dawn  of  the  better  day  of  liberty  and  fraternity  is 
already  upon  the  hills  and  in  due  time  the  sun  will  be  up.  In  the 
deliberations  of  this  auspicious  Congress  we  have  a  beautiful  com- 
mentary of  Tennyson's  dictum : 

"  God  fulfills  Himself  in  many  ways 
Lest  one  good  custom  should  corrupt  the  world." 

and  that  other  significantly  appropriate  paragraph  from  John  Rus- 
kin: 

"  Whenever  we  allow  our  minds  to  dwell  upon  the  points  (in  religion 
or  otherwise)  in  which  we  differ  from  other  people  we  are  wrong 
and  in  the  devil's  power.  .  .  .  This  is  the  essence  of  the  Pharisee's 
thanksgiving,  '  Lord,  I  thank  thee  that  I  am  not  as  other  men.'  At 
every  moment  of  our  lives  we  should  be  trying  to  find  out,  not  in  what 
we  differ  but  in  what  we  can  agree  with  them,  and  whenever  we  can 
agree  as  to  anything  that  should  be  done  kind  or  good,  then  do  it ;  push 
at  it  together.  But  when  the  best  of  men  stop  pushing  and  begin 
talking,  they  mistake  pugnacity  for  piety  and  it's  all  over." 


284 


REV.    JOHN    CLARENCE    LEE,    D.D.,    PASTOR   OF    THE    UNIVERSALIST 
CHURCH  OF  THE  RESTORATION,   PHILADELPHIA,   PA. 

Amid  the  great  variety  of  opinions  and  methods  of  expression 
that  we  have  heard  during  this  Congress,  one  clearly  dominant 
note  has  appeared,  namely,  that  religion  should  draw  men  together 
and  not  drive  them  apart.  Quite  otherwise  was  it  in  the  days  of 
enforced  uniformity  of  belief,  the  days  of  inquisition  and  martyr- 
dom. Quite  otherwise  is  it  even  to-day,  in  parts  of  the  Turkish 
empire,  where  a  sudden  outburst  of  fanatical  hatred  has  glutted 
itself  with  the  blood  of  thousands  of  Christian  victims.  When 
such  horrors  can  occur  in  the  twentieth  century,  as  the  result  of 
the  survival  of  the  ancient  idea  that  those  who  do  not  profess  a 
certain  religion  are  hateful  to  God  and  should  be  destroyed  by 
men,  it  is  indeed  time  that  those  in  more  enlightened  lands  should 
come  together  in  the  fellowship  of  the  spirit  and  the  bond  of  peace. 

A  Universalist  has  every  reason  to  desire  such  fellowship.  Our 
fathers  in  the  faith  were  generally  excommunicated.  ^\nien  John 
Murray  first  came  to  Philadelphia,  his  soul  aflame  with  the  vision 
of  a  race  entirelj'-  saved,  every  church  door  was  shut  and  barred 
against  him.  There  was  no  "  open  pulpit  "  then.  When  Elha- 
nan  Winchester  saw  the  light  of  a  larger  hope,  and  proclaimed  it, 
he  had  to  go  forth  from  the  church  of  which  he  was  the  pastor, 
and  he  went  forth,  not  knowing  whither  he  went.  It  is  interest- 
ing to  recall  that  for  him  was  opened  the  hall  of  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania,  which,  by  the  wisdom  and  breadth  of  Benjamin 
Franklin,  had  been  reserved  for  preachers  of  every  sect  and  creed. 

In  those  days  it  was  deemed  heretical  to  say  that  God  is  Love, 
that  he  is  the  universal  Father,  that  every  human  being  is  the 
child  of  God,  that  punishment  is  remedial  and  therefore  can  not 
be  endless,  that  moral  discipline  and  spiritual  progress  will  con- 
tinue in  the  coming  life,  that  good  \\  ill  triumph  over  evil  and  that 
all  souls  will  attain  the  full-orbed  measure  of  the  perfect  man. 
To  say  these  things,  as  our  fathers  said  them,  was  to  invite  social 
ostracism  and  ecclesiastical  condemnation.  Those  who  were  ex- 
cluded from  fellowship  for  such  opinions  had,  however,  the  con- 
solation of  their  faith,  that,  in  the  final  harmony  of  all  souls  with 


285 

God,  they  should  find  a  glorious  fellowship,  from  which,  at  last, 
no  lover  of  truth  should  be  debarred. 

It  is  good,  therefore,  in  these  halcyon  days,  to  experience  here 
this  earthly  image  of  the  heavenly  fellowship. 

We  are  all  of  us,  I  take  it,  more  or  less  in  the  position  of  the 
man  who  waited  after  the  service  and  thanked  the  preacher  for 
his  beautiful  sermon  on  the  recognition  of  friends  in  heaven. 
"  And  now,"  said  he,  "  I  wish  you  would  preach  a  sermon  on  the 
recognition  of  friends  on  earth ;  for  I've  been  coming  to  this 
church  for  the  last  three  years,  and  no  one  has  ever  recognized  me 
yet." 

The  manifestation  of  friendliness,  of  sympathy,  of  brotherhood, 
of  mutual  respect,  is  one  of  the  most  certain  proofs  of  the  genuine 
experience  of  religion.  "Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another;  for 
love  is  of  God;  and  everyone  that  loveth  is  born  of  God,  and 
knoweth  God." 

The  Universalist  has  a  definite  mission,  to  which  he  should  ren- 
der the  loyal  service  of  a  consecrated  soul.  He  has  staked  his 
claim,  both  in  name!  and  faith,  to  a  large  section.  But  he  holds 
his  title,  not  as  a  monopolist  or  land-grabber,  but  as  a  pioneer,  to 
open  up,  to  all  the  race,  for  gradual  settlement,  the  unoccupied 
lands  of  Paradise. 

But  what  is  the  new  spirit,  that  has  brought  us  all  together  in 
this  Federation?  Why  is  it  that  we  are  so  ready  and  willing,  at 
last,  to  be  liberal  in  religion  ?  We  have  been  working  and  seeking, 
each  in  his  own  way,  and,  somehow,  we  have  found  a  common 
truth.  A  great  light  has  streamed  into  our  minds.  And,  as  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  the  unifying  principle  that  makes  fellowship  not  only 
a  possibility  but  an  encouragement  and  a  joy,  is  the  recognition 
that  religion  is  a  living  revelation  of  a  living  God  in  the  living 
soul  of  man.  When  we  have  come  to  feel,  with  Malachi,  Paul, 
Fox,  Penn,  Lucretia  Mott,  Martineau,  Emerson,  Fechner  and 
other  seers,  that  God  is  not  far  from  every  one  of  us,  that  He  has 
never  left  himself  without  a  witness,  and  that  every  soul,  in  the 
degree  of  its  openness  and  sincerity,  may  be  the  recipient  of  a 
divinely  given  truth,  why  should  we  not  hold  converse  together? 

This   old  conviction,  wide-spread   in  this  ne\v  day,   supplies  a 


286 

bond  of  mutual  interest  stronger  than  any  creed.  The  minds  of 
men  may,  indeed,  differ  much  in  their  interpretation  of  the  mes- 
sage, as  their  limitations  and  imperfections  cloud  the  view.  As 
Shelley  said : 

"  Life,  like  a  dome  of  many-colored  glass, 
Stains  the  white  radiance  of  eternity." 

Yet  all  these  diverse  color-tones,  these  seemingly-various  beams 
of  human  understanding,  when  brought  together  and  once  more 
blended,  shall  give  to  us  the  seven-fold,  perfect  light  of  the  vision 
of  eternal  truth. 

REV.  WILLIAM   H.   FISH,   PASTOR  UNITARIAN   CHURCH,   MEADVILLE, 

PA. 

It  is  a  great  pleasure  and  privilege  —  a  peculiar  pleasure  and 
privilege  —  to  Unitarians  to  be  present  at  these  meetings.  The 
kind  of  fellowship  which  this  Federation  represents  is  what  we  have 
been  striving  for  for  many  years.  Long  ago  when  our  central 
organization  was  formed  it  took  for  its  name  "  The  National  Con- 
ference of  Unitarian  and  Other  Christian  Churches."  The  hope 
was  then  cherished  that  churches  in  general  sympathy  with  our 
aims,  but  not  caring  to  be  called  Unitarian,  would  join  us.  Un- 
fortunately that  hope  has  not  been  realized  in  any  large  measure, 
probably  because  our  real  purpose  has  not  been  clearly  understood. 
But  if  the  mountain  will  not  come  to  Mohammed,  Mohammed 
must  go  to  the  mountain.  If  other  churches  will  not  come  to  the 
Unitarians,  we  Unitarians  will  go,  if  assured  of  a  welcome,  to 
other  churches;  and  not  alone  to  churches  and  similar  organiza- 
tions which  bear  the  Christian  name.  There  is  a  vast  difference 
between  names  and  the  things  which  they  are  supposed  to  repre- 
sent. The  same  thing  may  be  given  half  a  dozen  different  names 
by  as  many  different  persons.  We  care  for  the  thing  rather  than 
the  name.  In  the  constitution  of  our  National  Conference  we 
declare  that  we  accept  the  religion  of  Jesus,  holding  in  accordance 
with  his  teaching  that  practical  religion  is  summed  up  in  love  to 
God  and  love  to  man.  To  all  who  are  animated  by  the  spirit 
implied  in  those  words,  by  whatever  name  they  may  call  them- 
selves, we  hold  out  our  right  hands  not  in  toleration^  but  in  cor- 


287 

dial  and  fraternal  fellowship.  Therefore  we  are  here;  therefore 
we  rejoice  in  the  founding  of  this  Federation;  therefore  we  bid  it 
a  hearty  God-speed !     May  it  live  long  and  prosper. 

CLOSING    REMARKS    BY    HENRY    W.    WILBUR,    PRESIDENT    OF    THE 

CONGRESS 

Surely  no  man  here  can  be  more  glad  for  this  day  than  he  who 
now  addresses  you.  Representing  a  religious  body  which  has  ta- 
booed proselyting,  he  has  seen  to-night  the  representative  of  his 
household  of  faith  attempt  to  gather  into  the  Society  of  Friends  in 
wholesale  fashion  this  splendid  company  of  men  and  women,  in 
number  half  as  many  as  were  converted  on  the  apostolic  day  of 
Pentecost.  I  shall  surely  not  haul  in  the  latch-string  which  my 
friend  has  hung  out.  While  I  wish  you  might  all  accept  his  in- 
vitation, I  fear  you  will  not.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  fences  are 
neither  so  high  nor  so  close  as  they  were  aforetime,  and  in  spite  of 
fences  we  be  brethren. 

As  we  near  the  moment  of  parting,  I  wish  to  express  my  deep- 
est gratitude  for  the  privilege  of  presiding  over  the  sessions  of 
this  Congress.  The  days  past,  and  their  experiences,  have  greatly 
inspired  me,  and  imparted  more  hope  and  courage  for  the  battle 
of  life  that  lies  before  us. 

What  is  to  be  the  outcome  of  these  days  of  communion? 
That  will  depend  upon  the  way  we  apply  the  impulses  received 
here.  Let  me  charge  you  to  go  into  the  world  and  become  yeast, 
centers  of  leaven,  which  will  make  the  unmoved  measures  of  meal 
full  of  life,  and  freighted  with  the  thirst  for  righteousness.  Under 
the  impulse  of  the  spirit  which  has  come  to  us  here,  the  prejudice 
of  ignorance  should  disappear,  and  race  and  sect  hatred  give  way 
to  the  sense  of  brotherhood,  bearing  fruit  in  a  broader  sympathy 
and  a  wider  helpfulness. 


OP   THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


^^0521 


19 


191682 


